B-i 

Appendix B 

Stakeholder and Public Comments and Responses on the Tier 1 EA

Table of Contents

1. Letters from Stakeholders and Responses................................................................................................................... B-1

2. Summary of Public Comments and Responses.......................................................................................................... B-70

3. List of Specific Public Comments Keyed to Responses.............................................................................................. B-81

4. Testimony from Public Hearings Keyed to Responses............................................................................................. B-103

5. Copy of the workshop report “Dependable Rail in 2016: What Will it Mean for the Knowledge Corridor”.......... B-287
B-1 

1. Letters from Stakeholders and Responses

a. United States Department of Interior June 20, 2012

b. State of Connecticut

i. Department of Economic and Community Development June 22, 2012

ii. Department of Public Health June 22, 2012

iii. Department of Energy & Environmental Protection June 22, 2012

c. Capital Region Council of Governments June 22, 2012

d. City of Meriden June 18, 2012

e. City of New Haven June 21, 2012

f. Town of Newington June 11, 2012

g. Town of Windsor June 22, 2012

h. Town of Wallingford June 13, 2012

i. Regional Plan Association June 14, 2012

j. Greater Meriden Chamber of Commerce June 18, 2012

k. Greater Hartford Transit District June 21, 2012

l. Peter Pan Lines, Inc. June 22, 2012

m. SK Realty June 22, 2012

n. Tri-State Transportation Campaign June 22, 2012

o. Connecticut League of Conservation Voters (not dated)

p. Connecticut Fund for the Environment June 22, 2012

q. Robert Fromer June 21, 2012
B-2 
B-3 

Response to the United States Department of the Interior, June 20, 2012

Connecticut Department of Transportation is working with the Federal Railroad Administration who will be 

providing direction on any Section 4(f) impacts and required mitigation.
B-4 
B-5 

Response to State of Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development Comments, June 22, 

2012

Thank you for your support of the project. Throughout the preparation of the EA, CTDOT has engaged all of the 

communities to develop the proposed project in a manner that is consistent with their development plans. 

CTDOT recognizes the importance of Transit Oriented Development as a way to maximize the economic 

development of the region and supports TOD efforts that are compatible with the project.

As the project enters final design for the phases that are funded, CTDOT will continue to engage the 

communities so that the NHHS Rail improvements are consistent with community plans and funding which they 

have secured for adjacent initiatives.
B-6 
B-7 
B-8 

Response to State of Connecticut Department of Public Health Comments, June 22, 2012

Response to comment 4.3.2-1 

The Town of Berlin was included in the CE for Phase 1 rather than this EA. However, Table 4-14 is revised as part 

of Section 6.0 of this FONSI to include the Berlin well field.

Response to comment 4.3.2-2 

Section 2.5 mapping for the Town of Berlin has been revised and included in Appendix D of this FONSI

Response to comment 4.4.16-1 

As the project enters final design for the phases that are funded, CTDOT will continue to engage the 

communities so that the NHHS Rail improvements are consistent with the needs of the Berlin and Wallingford 

public water systems. Specific contacts recommended are:

• Wallingford Public Utilities Commission: George Adair,

Director of Public Utilities

203-294-2263

• Berlin Water Control Commission: Bruce Laroche - Chairman

5 Worthington Lane 

Berlin, CT (860) 828-1558
B-9 
B-10
B-11
B-12
B-13

Response to State of Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) Comments, 

June 22, 2012

Response to comment 3.3-1 

Please see Response to Comment 3.3 B in included in “2. Summary of Public Comments and Responses”.

Response to comment 4.2.4-1 

Thank you for your support of the project and your continuing involvement, guidance, and advice as the project 

advances into final design and permitting. Be assured that during final design CTDOT will coordinate with DEEP 

to implement LID and other innovative techniques to reduce storm water runoff and mitigate water quality 

impacts. As indicated in Volume II, final design will follow Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual which would 

include applicable appendices.

Response to comment 4.2.4-2 

The conceptual designs included in Volume II do not identify floor drainage systems for the garages; this level of 

detail will be developed during final design in accordance with all applicable regulations and permitting 

requirements. CTDOT appreciates your input at this time which is being included in the FONSI available for 

reference to the final designers.

Response to comment 4.3.4-1 

Because of railroad geometry considerations the exact starting point for the Phase 1 double track must be 

determined during final design. At that time CTDOT will determine if the project extends into the coastal 

boundary.

Response to comment 4.4.16-1 

Be assured that during final design and preparation of contract documents for construction CTDOT will 

coordinate with DEEP to implement the best management practices for controlling air quality during 

construction. CTDOT appreciates your input at this time which is being included in the FONSI available for 

reference to the final designers.
B-14
B-15
B-16

Response to the Capitol Region Council of Governments’ Comments, June 22, 2012

Response to Comment 1.3-1 

As indicated in Table 1-1 and in Sec. 1.3 (on page 10) of the EA, the available funding for the project cannot be 

used for the construction of regional rail stations; CTDOT must therefore apply for future funding from the FTA 

for improvements to New Haven's State Street Station, and proposed new stations in North Haven, Newington, 

West Hartford and Enfield.

Response to Comment 3.3-1 

Please see Response to Comment 3.3B included in “2. Summary of Public Comments and Responses”.

Response to Comment 4.4.2-1 

Section 4.4.2 of the EA confirms that the proposed project would be consistent with all State of Connecticut, 

regional, and municipal plans in the corridor. During final design CTDOT will continue to coordinate with local 

stakeholders. CTDOT would continue to engage CRCOG via your proposed advisory board that would streamline 

the coordination process.

Response to Comment 4.4.10-1 

Section 4.4.10 of the EA (Page 165) acknowledges that rail transportation has to be integrated with all other 

modes of transportation (pedestrian, bus, bus rapid transit, and air). During final station design CTDOT will 

continue to work with all stakeholders to develop the station facilities to ensure that mobility is optimized.

Response to Comment 4.4.10-2 

Section 4.4.10 of the EA (Pages 153, 165, and 166) discusses that the existing parking in the area of the stations 

is not adequate to support the projected ridership for 2030. The travel demand models completed by CTDOT 

and Amtrak were used to determine the modal split (riders getting out of their autos and boarding the train). 

Specific parking capacity requirements, based on those models, are included in Table 4-30. The basis of the 

modal splits and parking capacity requirements is a reference document (Data Collection/Ridership Analysis) 

which can be made available as described in Section 8.0 of the EA. As noted in Table 4-30, parking for Hartford, 

would not be constructed as part of this project but will be addressed and advanced by the local parking 

authorities to be compatible with their downtown development plans which would include the Interstate 84 

Viaduct Study and a vision for relocating the existing rail line.

Response to Comment 4.4.13-1 

Section 4.4.13 of the EA, Table 4-34 identifies the Proposed Action at grade crossing in the corridor. Grade 

crossings will receive either two quad gates and a median or four quad gates. These improvements make them 

eligible to be designated as "Quiet Zones” to mitigate noise impacts. During final design, CTDOT will continue to 

work with the communities to implement “Quiet Zones”.
B-17
B-18
B-19
B-20

Response to the City of Meriden’s Comments, June 18, 2012

Response to Comment Regarding Page ES-1 

Train speeds are a function of many factors including distance between stops, frequency of at-grade crossings 

and track alignment. Therefore, they vary along the length of the corridor. The proposed train speeds along the 

corridor are shown in Appendix D of the reference document "Service Development Plan". Section 8.0 of the EA 

provides instructions for reviewing reference documents.

Response to Comment Regarding Page ES-6 

The station concepts included in the EA are intended to show an overall concept to determine feasibility, 

general proportions, and land use. Throughout the preparation of the EA, CTDOT has engaged all of the 

communities to develop the proposed project in a manner that is consistent with their development plans. 

CTDOT recognizes the importance of Transit Oriented Development as a way to maximize the economic 

development of the region and supports TOD efforts that are compatible with the project.

As the project enters final design for the phases that are funded, CTDOT will continue to engage the 

communities so that the NHHS Rail improvements are consistent with community plans.

Response to Comment Regarding Page ES-18

Section 4.4.10 of the EA details the anticipated impacts that increased train service would have on traffic 

operations at existing at-grade crossings and improvements that will be implemented to mitigate these impacts. 

Page 164 contains statement "Intersections adjacent to the Meriden Station will not deteriorate in LOS (level of 

service of traffic operations) due to grade crossings compared to the no-build conditions and there are no 

adverse impacts. The intersections studied in Meriden are included in Table 4-29 (Page 160). Technical Report 

“7. Traffic Operations Analysis” referenced in Section 8.0 of the EA studied grade crossings near the station and 

included East Main Street and Britannia Street. It was determined that the increased train frequency would not 

cause a reduction in LOS. A copy of that technical report can be obtained through CTDOT. 

Response to Comment Regarding Page 15

Section 4.4.10 of the EA (Pages 165 and 166) discusses that the travel demand models completed by CTDOT and 

Amtrak were used to determine the modal split (riders getting out of their autos and boarding the train). 

Specific parking capacity requirements, based on those models, are included in Table 4-30. The basis of the 

modal splits and parking capacity requirements is a reference document (Data Collection/Ridership Analysis) 

which can be made available as described in Section 8.0 of the EA. The final layout of the station, pedestrian 

access, bus stalls, auto access, and parking layout will be determined during final design. 

Response to Comment Regarding Page 22

CTDOT will work with the City of Meriden as the final design of the structure improvements develops. The 

following structures in Meriden are included in Phase 2 of the project which is intended to be complete by 2016:

• MP 16.78 28’ deck girder over Gypsy Lane Rehab/Repair

• MP 16.84 18” corrugated metal pipe with brick arch Rehab/Repair

• MP 17.00 3’ x 4’ brick arch Rehab/Repair

• MP 21.12 Overhead bridge abutment Remove

Response to Comment Regarding Page 51

Section 4.2.2 of the EA (Pages 52 and 53) indicates that noise mitigation must be considered for severe noise 

impacts. Impacts in the moderate range may require consideration if it is determined to be feasible and 

appropriate. CTDOT is committed to evaluating each receptor on a case-by-case basis during final design to 

ascertain the need for mitigation. Noise insulation is a potential mitigation if mitigation is necessary.
B-21

Response to Comment Regarding Page 178

Delays at grade crossings have been identified when the intersection is near a station and the train stopping at 

the station causes the gate to close the roadway. Britannia Street grade crossing was studied and is not affected 

by the train stopping at the Meriden station. The increased train speed does not cause intersection delays; 

converting the grade crossing to quad gates as indicated in Table 4-34 meets safety requirements due to the 

higher speed of the train. CTDOT has not prepared a cost study for grade separating Britannia Street; studies at 

other locations in the corridor have demonstrated that they are not feasible.

Response to Comment Regarding Concept Drawing Page 9 and Concept Design Review

The station concepts included in the EA are intended to show an overall concept to determine feasibility, 

general proportions, and land use. Table 4-30 of the EA (Page 166) indicates that 11 spaces are intended for Kiss 

and Ride. These are generally identified by pavement marking or signage. Throughout the preparation of the 

EA, CTDOT has engaged all of the communities to develop the proposed project in a manner that is consistent 

with their development plans. CTDOT recognizes the importance of Transit Oriented Development as a way to 

maximize the economic development of the region and supports TOD efforts that are compatible with the 

project. As the project enters final design for the phases that are funded, CTDOT will continue to engage the 

communities so that the NHHS Rail improvements are consistent with community plans.

Response to Comment Regarding Community Facilities Map

CTDOT is aware of the City’s intention to develop the Hub into a TOD and recreational area. As such the concept 

plans for the station do not use any of that property. The City’s current zoning maps identify the Hub area as 

zoned C-1 “Central Commercial”.
B-22
B-23
B-24

Response to the City of New Haven’s Comments, June 21, 2012

As indicated in Table 1-1 and in Sec. 1.3 (on page 10) of the EA, the available funding for the project cannot be 

used for the construction of regional rail stations; CTDOT must therefore apply for future funding from the FTA 

for improvements to New Haven's State Street Station.
B-25
B-26

Response to the Town of Newington’s Comments, June 11, 2012

Section 3.3 of the EA Table 3-2 (Page 23) indicates that the structure at MP 28.63 over Webster Brook is being 

replaced. This work is included in Phase 1 which is covered under a Categorical Exclusion and the FRA funding is 

obligated. That work is included in the EA document to satisfy the State of Connecticut Environmental Impact 

Evaluation requirements.
B-27
B-28
B-29

Response to the Town of Windsor’s Comments, June 22, 2012

Response to Comment 3.3-1 

Section 3.3 of the EA Table 3-2 (Page 24) indicates that the bridge over Batchelder Rd is in satisfactory condition. 

As such it will not be upgraded under this project. It will be maintained in an ongoing state of good repair by 

Amtrak.

Response to Comment 4.4.6-1 

Visual Resources and Quality is an environmental resource included in Section 4.4.6 that the project intends to 

maintain. There will be public meetings during design phase at which time decisions regarding the architectural 

appearance and final site layout will be made. As indicated in Section 1.3 of the EA (Page 9) the Windsor Station 

is included in Phase 3B and funding has not been awarded. The schedule for this work will depend on funding 

being awarded.

Response to Comment 4.4.7-1 

Section 4.4.7 of the EA Table 4-20 (Page 130) indicates that the Farmington River Bridge in Windsor contributes 

to the historic New Haven-Springfield Rail Line. Therefore, modifications to the structure must follow the 

process included in the Programmatic Agreement (PA) as described on Page 147.

Response to Comment 4.4.13-1 

Section 4.4.13 of the EA Table 4-34 (Page 178) indicates that the Wilson Avenue grade crossing is to be closed. 

The Town is encouraged to work with CTDOT as the project continues to identify and implement alternative 

access to the open space and trail.
B-30
B-31

TESTIMONY OF

AMANDA KENNEDY

ASSOCIATE PLANNER, CONNECTICUT OFFICE

REGIONAL PLAN ASSOCIATION

ON BEHALF OF

REGIONAL PLAN ASSOCIATION

REGARDING

THE NEW HAVEN - HARTFORD - SPRINGFIELD HIGH-SPEED INTERCITY RAIL PROGRAM

BEFORE THE

CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

June 14, 2012

North Haven High School, 221 Elm Street

Public Hearing on the Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Evaluation for the New Haven - Hartford 

- Springfield High-Speed Intercity Rail Program
B-32

Good evening. It’s a pleasure to appear before you tonight. I’m here speaking on behalf of Regional Plan 

Association, a 90-year-old independent urban research and advocacy group that is dedicated to planning for the 

growth and development of the New York- New Jersey-Connecticut metropolitan region. We understand the 

influence that quality transit services can have in shaping a region. I’m here to share RPA’s strong support for 

the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Rail Corridor Improvement Program, which will create faster, more 

frequent, and more connections between important job centers in Connecticut’s Knowledge Corridor and 

Coastal regions, but to emphasize that the rail project must be in conjunction with improvements to local 

transit, incorporating a branding and marketing campaign, and supporting land use planning to maximize the 

benefits of the rail system.

RPA has long supported improvements to the transportation network and worked to promote greater transitoriented development in Connecticut, including projects such as the New Britain-Hartford Busway, which finally 

broke ground last month. The rail and Busway will complement one another in expanding the transit network in 

central Connecticut, with connections at both Newington Junction and Hartford enabling quick local transit trips 

to and from longer commutes by rail. 

A year ago, RPA convened 90 business and community leaders, city and regional planners, and government 

officials for two workshops in Hartford and Rocky Hill to identify opportunities for achieving greater economic 

growth in the region in conjunction with the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Rail investment and to determine 

the strategies necessary to achieve a complementary, regional vision. In preparation we analyzed the likelihood 

of the region’s economy to respond and benefit from rail connectivity. The New Haven-Hartford-Springfield 

Knowledge Corridor includes at least 75 colleges and universities within ten miles of the corridor, including 

Central Connecticut State, Southern Connecticut State, Yale University, and Quinnipiac University. The region’s 

employment base also specializes in several knowledge-sector and related industries, such as aerospace, 

medical device, and precision manufacturing, renewable energy, and educational services. Research has shown 

that schools and knowledge industries thrive in areas that have fast, frequent, and reliable transportation 

connections, which enable face-to-face interactions, so scholars can easily collaborate on research and 

innovation. 

At last year’s first workshop, we convened planners and economic development professionals to hear from 

experts from Maine’s Downeaster and California’s Capitol Corridor, where communities have embraced rail 

service as the cornerstone of their economic development strategies. Workshop participants discussed how 

lessons from these case studies and others could be applied to the Knowledge Corridor and engaged in an 

exercise to develop strategies specifically for this region. These strategies were then presented to an audience 
B-33

of business stakeholders at a second workshop, which provided additional feedback and suggestions for next 

steps. A final report was prepared that outlined the recommendations coming out of this workshop.

The following are a few of the key recommended strategies that were formulated at the workshop:

• Rail service must be accessible to communities. To promote access, improve intermodal connectivity at 

stations by integrating bus, shuttle, bike, and pedestrian infrastructure, as well as developing housing and jobs 

within walking distance to reduce the need for auto trips.

See Response to Comment 4.4.10-1 

• Cultivate a diverse and loyal ridership with branding and marketing strategies that highlight the region’s 

natural beauty, history, and culture to help generate ridership and foster a sense of local ownership. Dining cars 

on Maine trains serve lobster rolls in summer and clam chowder in the winter. Multiple ridership sectors fill 

empty return train cars, making the rail more financially feasible and supporting higher frequencies.

• Integrate state and local economic development and planning strategies to create a single, corridor-wide 

economic development plan that attracts and retains businesses and talented employees, and maximizes 

growth in the region.

• Develop and allow innovative financing mechanisms, such as value capture, for the communities that would 

like to use them in order to help fund ongoing capital improvements and local development projects that 

improve station areas, promote transit-oriented development and pedestrian conditions.

• Initiate a statewide transit village program that provides funding and technical assistance to communities that 

want to promote infill development in their downtown areas and build walkable, mixed-use, commuter-oriented 

housing around their rail stations. RPA has worked with communities in Connecticut and throughout the region 

to develop visions for their communities and put in place zoning and design guidelines that implement those 

visions.

• Adopt a corridor-wide overlay district that creates new design standards, but leaves local zoning codes intact in 

order to encourage transit-supportive development around rail stations that is sensitive to each community.

• Explore forming a single purpose entity – such as a Knowledge Corridor Rail Authority – to coordinate the 

multiple functions and agencies involved in the project. It would provide better interagency and state-local 

coordination, and ensure that rail operations solutions are developed in a manner that is also supportive of state 

and local development goals. The new entity should work with a coordinating council of municipalities on the 

corridor to improve stations and station access.
B-34

See Response to Comment 4.4.15-1 

Case studies from around the world have shown that improved passenger rail service can bring schools, 

businesses, and people closer together and expand access to markets, but only if a mix of complementary 

strategies, like the ones I just listed, are in place. RPA believes that if these approaches are followed, the New 

Haven-Hartford-Springfield Rail Program will generate economic benefits for the region that extend far beyond 

the station areas.

We hope that the project can proceed as scheduled, and that the Department will work with partner agencies to 

implement these recommendations.

A copy of our workshop report, Dependable Rail in 2016: What Will It Mean for the Knowledge Corridor? is 

attached to this testimony.

A copy of the workshop report is included in Part 5 of this Appendix B.
B-35

Response to Comment 4.4.10-1 

Thank you for your comment in support of the project. Discussion of the existing and proposed train stations 

that will experience increased passenger rail service under this project is provided in Sec. 4.4.1 of the EA. 

Discussion on transit, parking and pedestrian access to existing and proposed train stations is provided in Sec. 

4.4.10 of the EA.

Response to Comment 4.4.15-1 

Section 4.4.15 of the EA, “Secondary and Cumulative Impacts”, discusses the beneficial cumulative impacts relative 

to potential new local development or redevelopment adjacent to or in the proximity of new or improved train 

stations; the State of Connecticut is encouraging and assisting towns and cities along the corridor to consider and 

incentivize transit-oriented development (TOD) near the train stations to optimize the benefits of transit, improve 

the local economy and provide jobs – the table “Summary of Economic Environment and Potential Development” in 

Appendix 5 of the EA provides information on planned or potential TOD for each of the stations in the corridor.

CTDOT welcomes initiatives from stakeholders that leverage the transportation investment to make the overall 

region more vibrant and productive. During the design process CTDOT will continue to work with communities to 

integrate their needs into the constructed facility as well as the operating plan of the service.
B-36
B-37
B-38
B-39

Response to Greater Hartford Transit District Comments, June 21, 2012

Section 4.4.10 of the EA (Pages 153, 165, and 166) discusses that the existing parking in the area of the stations 

is not adequate to support the projected ridership for 2030. The travel demand models completed by CTDOT 

and Amtrak were used to determine the modal split (riders getting out of their autos and boarding the train). 

Specific parking capacity requirements, based on those models, are included in Table 4-30. The basis of the 

modal splits and parking capacity requirements is a reference document (Data Collection/Ridership Analysis) 

which can be made available as described in Section 8.0 of the EA. This reference document not only provides 

the modal split between autos but also indicated the number of riders per day that will change modes from bus 

and walking to train at each station. The basis for the number of bus bays required for each station is included 

in a reference document (Transportation/Transit) which can be made available as described in Section 8.0 of the 

EA. This reference document identifies all of the recommended bus routes for servicing the train stations as 

well as recommended scheduling/frequency changes in order to provide an integrated transit service. Except for 

New Haven, Hartford, and Springfield the final layout of the station, pedestrian access, bus stalls, auto access, 

and parking layout will be determined during final design. As noted in Table 4-30, parking for Hartford would 

not be constructed as part of this project but will be addressed and advanced by the local parking authority to 

be compatible with the downtown development plans which would include the initiative to revise I 84 and the 

existing track alignment in the station area.
B-40
B-41

Response to Peter Pan Lines, Inc. Comments, June 22, 2012

Response to Comment 2.0-1 

Alternative Analysis

The Alternative Analysis of the EA considered alternatives meeting the Purpose and Need of the proposed 

project.

Section 2.0 of the EA (Page 12) identifies the Purpose of the project to “...increase the frequency and speed of 

passenger service along the NHHS rail corridor and to address the current and future transportation needs of 

Connecticut, Central Massachusetts, Boston, and Vermont. By improving the existing rail infrastructure and 

passenger rail service between New Haven, Connecticut, and Springfield, Massachusetts, this project will allow 

partnering states of Vermont and Massachusetts to realize the benefits of the infrastructure improvements 

already funded or planned in those states under FRA’s HSIPR Program, including expanded Vermonter Service 

extending as far north as Montreal, Canada and inland service between Springfield and Boston.”

Section 2.0 of the EA (Pages 12 and 13) identifies the Need of the project which recognizes the increase in 

intercity travel, demographic growth, and capacity constraints on the study area’s highways. “...the state 

remains dependent on trucking for 98 percent of its freight needs, congestion problems are anticipated to 

increase and negatively impact the economic competitiveness of the region.”

The Need of the project also recognizes the “...region’s lack of integrated transit service. Though investment has 

been made in the service that is available, the lack of trip frequency, boarding locations and interconnectedness 

of services provided ensure the automobile remains the mode of choice when commuting to and from work and 

for basic needs, as well as for intercity travel.”

With respect to the Alternative Analysis of the EA, private bus service was not considered an alternative because 

it would not address the following:

1. Meet the project’s purpose to “allow partnering states of Vermont and Massachusetts to realize the 

benefits of the infrastructure improvements already funded or planned in those states under FRA’s HSIPR 

Program”. 

2. Meet the project’s need to reduce traffic on the highways; insofar as bus service would use the existing 

highway system it would be subject to highway congestion and delay.

3. Meet the project’s need to provide integrated transit service and provide an alternative to automobile 

usage; private bus service is limited in the study area as follows:

a. Private Bus Service in the Study Area

i. Central Business Districts (CBD’s) of Springfield, Hartford, and New Haven are connected 

with intercity bus service operated by Greyhound/Peter Pan using I-91.

ii. Springfield has connecting service operated by Peter Pan with a route to Greenfield via 

North Hampton.

iii. Hartford has connecting service operated by DATTCO with routes to Bristol, Old 

Saybrook, and Cheshire-Southington.

b. Railroad Stations in the Study Area not Serviced by Private Bus Service

i. Wallingford, CT

ii. Meriden, CT

iii. Berlin, CT
B-42

iv. Windsor, CT

v. Windsor Locks, CT

vi. Brattleboro, VT

vii. Bellows Falls, VT

viii. White River Junction, VT

ix. St. Albans, VT

Response to Comment 4.4.10-1 

Impact on Other Transit Service Providers

Other transit service providers do not offer, as indicated above, one seat service to many of the locations 

included in the proposed project. Transit service providers do, however, offer service from locations in the 

study area to destinations outside of the study area. Section 4.4.10 of the EA (Page 165) indicates that all 

stations will provide transit stalls so that bus service can continue to be integrated with train service; perhaps 

even more robustly than currently offered.

Response to Comment 4.5-1 

Cost of Operation

Section 4.5 of the EA, Table 4-36 identifies the Annualized cost for incremental rail operation and maintenance. 

The Service Development Plan, a reference document available from CTDOT (refer to Section 8.0 of the EA), and 

Appendix 7 of the EA provide the values of Table 4-36.
B-43
B-44

Response to SK Realty Comments June 22, 2012

The Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) appreciates your concerns relative to the proposed rail 

station in West Hartford. 

 This site is one of the four new regional stations being planned. It should be noted that currently there is no 

funding in place to move forward with this station or any of the new station locations. The project is being 

funded by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) through the American Recoveries and Reinvestment Act 

(ARRA) as High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Service from New Haven to Springfield. Because the station at 

Flatbush Avenue is considered a regional station (it would increase the benefits of improved rail service by also 

accommodating commuter service) it is not eligible for FRA funding. CTDOT intends to apply for future Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) funding to construct the four new regional stations at North Haven, Newington, 

West Hartford, and Enfield, as well as, provide an additional platform at the State Street station in New Haven. 

 No Rights-of-Way action for the West Hartford station is pending at this time. The applicable law and 

mitigation of impacts related to any property acquisitions associated with the project is as follow:

Section 4.4.3 of the EA (Pages 96 and 98) states that:

 • Applicable Law: CTDOT is required to comply with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970 and provide monetary and other relocation assistance to displaced 

property owners whose properties are acquired for the implementation of federally funded projects.

 • Mitigation: In order to mitigate the acquisition of properties for station construction, affected property 

owners will be afforded relocation assistance through the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970. CTDOT is authorized and required to provide monetary and other 

relocation assistance to displaced property owners whose properties would be acquired for implementation of 

the proposed federally funded project.

 Section 5.2 of the EA (Pages 201 and 202) identifies meetings held with West Hartford local officials on 

4/29/2011 and 7/27/2011 to review the proposed project including the site selection process for proposed new 

train stations as well as parking layout.

CTDOT acknowledges that additional coordination is required with the town of West Hartford in order to select 

the preferred alternative site for the West Hartford station.
B-45
B-46
B-47
B-48

Response to Tri-state Transportation Campaign Comments June 22, 2012

Response to Comment 4.4.10-1 

Section 4.4.10 indicates that all improvements to the station sites will provide for safe and ADA accessible routes 

from the public space to the boarding platforms including bicycle storage. While improvements off of the 

project sites on existing streets and sidewalks could enhance the overall ease of accessing the station by bicycle 

or walking it is unfortunately outside of the scope of the project.

Response to Comment 4.4.10-2 

Section 4.4.10 of the EA (Pages 153, 165, and 166) discusses that the existing parking in the area of the stations 

is not adequate to support the projected ridership for 2030. The travel demand models completed by CTDOT 

and Amtrak were used to determine the modal split (riders getting out of their autos and boarding the train). 

Specific parking capacity requirements, based on those models, are included in Table 4-30. The basis of the 

modal splits and parking capacity requirements is a reference document (Data Collection/Ridership Analysis) 

which can be made available as described in Section 8.0 of the EA. Except for New Haven, Hartford, and 

Springfield the final layout of the station, pedestrian access, bus stalls, auto access, and parking layout will be 

determined during final design. As noted in Table 4-30, parking for New Haven, Hartford, and Springfield would 

not be constructed as part of this project but will be addressed and advanced by the local parking authorities to 

be compatible with their downtown development plans.

Visual Resources and Quality is an environmental resource included in Section 4.4.6 that the project intends to 

maintain. There will be public meetings during design phase at which time decisions regarding the architectural 

appearance and final site layout will be made. 

Response to Comment 4.4.15-1 

Section 4.4.15 of the EA, “Secondary and Cumulative Impacts”, discusses the beneficial cumulative impacts relative 

to potential new local development or redevelopment adjacent to or in the proximity of new or improved train 

stations; the State of Connecticut is encouraging and assisting towns and cities along the corridor to consider and 

incentivize transit-oriented development (TOD) near the train stations to optimize the benefits of transit, improve 

the local economy and provide jobs – the table “Summary of Economic Environment and Potential Development” in 

Appendix 5 of the EA provides information on planned or potential TOD for each of the stations in the corridor.

CTDOT welcomes initiatives from stakeholders that leverage the transportation investment to make the overall 

region more vibrant and productive. During the design process CTDOT will continue to work with communities to 

integrate their needs into the constructed facility as well as the operating plan of the service.
B-49
B-50
B-51

Response to Connecticut League of Conservation Voters (undated)

Response to Comment 3.3-1 

Section 3.3 indicates the improvements to bridges and culverts. All structures over waterways are designed to 

provide adequate hydraulic capacity for storm water flow without impacting upstream or downstream waters. 

Impacts to wetlands will be mitigated in accordance with DEEP requirements.

Response to Comment 4.2.4-1 

Thank you for your support of the project. Be assured that during final design CTDOT will coordinate with DEEP 

to implement LID and other innovative techniques to reduce storm water runoff and mitigate water quality 

impacts. As indicated in Volume II, final design will follow Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual which would 

include applicable appendices.

Response to Comment 4.4.6-1 

Visual Resources and Quality is an environmental resource included in Section 4.4.6 that the project intends to 

maintain. There will be public meetings during design phase at which time decisions regarding landscaping will 

be made.

Response to Comment 4.4.11-1 

To the degree practical at the EA level of analysis, Section 4.4.11 of the EA indicates that the project will have a 

positive impact on energy requirements due to a reduction in personal automobile and reduced fossil fuel 

consumption. During final design CTDOT will continue to select materials and design details that promote 

sustainability while providing quality facilities for extended life at a reasonable cost. Section 4.4.17 of the EA 

also discusses the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources in the constructed facility to be 

reasonably certain, at this level of study, that the long term sustainability and transportation energy savings 

justify the initial resources.
B-52
B-53
B-54

Response to Connecticut Fund for the Environment June 22, 2012

Thank you for your support of the project. Be assured that during final design CTDOT will coordinate with DEEP 

to implement LID and other innovative techniques to reduce storm water runoff and mitigate water quality 

impacts. As indicated in Volume II, final design will follow Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual which would 

include applicable appendices.

Regarding construction related activities note that Section 4.4.16 of the EA provides a substantial list of 

requirements so that CTDOT can mitigate impacts to environmental resources during construction.
B-55

ROBERT FROMER

EJD, MSEE, P.C., P.E., R.E.P. 

P. O. Box 71, Windsor, Connecticut 06095-2205 

E-mail: saintrobert@comcast.net

June 21, 2012

SENT AS AN E-MAIL ATTACHMENT TO: Mark.W.Alexander@ct.gov

Mr. Mark W. Alexander

Transportation Assistant Planning Director

2800 Berlin Turnpike

Newington, CT 06131-7546

Re: Comments on the Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact 

Evaluation (EA/EIE) for the New Haven-Hartford- Springfield Rail Program 

(NHHS)

Dear Mr. Alexander:

I. Project Description1

: The proposed rail service enhancement in the NHHS rail corridor 

would provide for up to 25 daily round-trip trains (up to 50 one-way trips per day) by 2030. The 

proposed service plan would provide one-seat or cross-platform transfers on service from 

Washington, D.C., and New York to Springfield, Boston and the Knowledge Corridor, as well as 

bi-directional, 30-minute peak-hour service and hourly midday service in the NHHS rail corridor. 

Related operational improvements include an increase in the capacity of the line to 

accommodate additional trains, an increase in the maximum train speed to 110 miles per hour 

(mph), service to future new regional train stations in North Haven, Newington, West Hartford, 

and Enfield (to be constructed with Federal Transit Administration (“FTA”) funding), and reduced 

scheduled travel times. These operational improvements, in turn, require rail infrastructure 

improvements. Therefore, Connecticut has proposed the NHHS Rail Program, a program of 

capital projects to support enhanced passenger rail service in the NHHS rail corridor. The 

proposed project’s infrastructure improvements in the NHHS rail corridor consist of:

• restoration of sections of track;

• construction of new passing sidings;

• construction of a layover and light maintenance facility;

• at-grade crossing upgrades;

• facility-specific bridge and culvert rehabilitations, replacements and removals;

• installation of new crossovers and signal upgrades;

• improvement or relocation of existing passenger rail platforms for Amtrak intercity 

service, as well as additional station parking and improved station access;

• improvements to platforms, track configuration and sidings in the Springfield Terminal 

area; and construction of future FTA-funded new regional rail stations in North Haven, 

Newington, West Hartford, and Enfield.

 

1 The project description appears in the June 5, 2012 edition of the Environmental Monitor. 
NHHS

Comments of Robert Fromer

June 21, 2012

Page - 56 – 

B-56

II. APPLICABLE LAW

Section 22a-1b(c) of the Connecticut General Statutes (“G.S.”) requires that:

Each state department, institution or agency responsible for the primary 

recommendation or initiation of actions which may significantly affect the 

environment shall in the case of each such proposed action make a detailed 

written evaluation of its environmental impact before deciding whether to undertake 

or approve such action. All such environmental impact evaluations shall be 

detailed statements setting forth the following:

1. [T]he environmental consequences of the proposed action, including 

cumulative, direct and indirect effects which might result during and subsequent to 

the proposed action. Section 22a-1b(c)(2); 

2. [T]he effect of the proposed action on the use and conservation of energy 

resources. Section 22a-1b(c)(7); and

3. [T]he General Assembly declares that it is the policy of the state of 

Connecticut to (1) conserve energy resources by avoiding unnecessary and 

wasteful consumption; (2) consume energy resources in the most efficient manner 

feasible . . . (8) maintain planning and preparedness capabilities necessary to deal 

effectively with future energy supply interruptions; and (9) when available energy 

alternatives are equivalent, give preference for capacity additions first to 

conservation and load management. The state shall seek all possible ways to 

implement this policy through public education and cooperative efforts involving the 

federal government, regional organizations, municipal governments, other public 

and private organizations and concerned individuals, using all practical means and 

measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to 

promote the general welfare by creating and maintaining conditions under which 

energy can be utilized effectively and efficiently. The General Assembly further 

declares that it is the continuing responsibility of the state to use all means 

consistent with other essential considerations of state policy to improve and 

coordinate the plans, functions, programs and resources of the state to attain the 

objectives stated herein without harm to the environment, risk to health or safety or 

other undesirable or unintended consequences, to preserve wherever possible a 

society which supports a diversity and variety of individual choice, to achieve a 

balance between population and resource use which will permit the maintenance of 

adequate living standards and a sharing of life's amenities among all citizens, and 

to enhance the utilization of renewable resources so that the availability of 

nonrenewable resources can be extended to future generations. The General 

Assembly declares that the energy policy is essential to the preservation and 

enhancement of the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the state 

and that its implementation therefore constitutes a significant and valid public 

purpose for all state actions.
NHHS

Comments of Robert Fromer

June 21, 2012

Page - 57 – 

B-57

“[T]he purpose of the [National and Connecticut] Environmental Policy Act[s] is to ensure 

systematic consideration of environmental risks at the early stages of planning before the state 

commits its resources to the particular use of a site.” Westport v. State, 204 Conn. 212, 220 

(1987). "An environmental impact evaluation shall be prepared as close as possible to the time 

an agency proposes an action. The evaluation shall be prepared early enough so that it can 

practically serve as an important contribution to the decision-making process and shall not be 

used to rationalize or justify decisions already made.” Id.

The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and the Connecticut Environmental 

Policy Act (“CEPA”) “require public agencies to undertake programmatic pursuit of 

environmental assessments of their actions so as to "conserve, improve and protect 

[Connecticut's] natural resources and environment and to control air, land and water pollution in 

order to enhance the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state." (Internal quotation 

marks omitted.) Id. at 221.

“Statements shall be concise, clear, and to the point, and shall be supported by evidence 

that the agency has made the necessary environmental analyses.” (Emphasis added.) 40 

Code of Federal Regulations 1502.1. “An environmental impact statement is more than a 

disclosure document.” Id. “It shall be used by Federal officials in conjunction with other relevant 

material to plan actions and make decisions.” Id.

My comments will show that the content of the EA/EIE jointly prepared by the Federal 

Railway Administration (“FRA”) and Connecticut Department of Transportation (“DOT”) is 

contrary to the planning purposes embodied in NEPA/CEPA and Westport. Both NEPA and 

CEPA require facts in the EA/EIE to form the basis for system design and construction.

III. COMMENTS

The pertinent and appropriate statements in the EA and associated comments are as 

follows:

DOT Claim #1: Improved rail service offers a safer, greener and healthier alternative to 

highway travel - one that requires 35 percent less energy per passenger-mile and generates 

correspondingly lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Introduction, Section 1.1, 

paragraph 1.

Fromer Comment #1: There is no energy analysis to support the claimed “35 percent 

less energy per passenger-mile and generates correspondingly lower levels of greenhouse gas 

emissions.” These are unsubstantiated statements taken as true.

DOT Claim #2: The Northeast is projected to be a robust market for Intercity travel 

estimated to reach 200 million medium-distance trips (between 100 and 400 miles) across all 

major transportation modes - auto, air and rail - by 2025. With expected demographic growth, 

and increased capacity constraints on the study area's highways and at major airports, Amtrak's 

preliminary estimates are that Intercity passenger rail ridership in the Northeast could double by 

2030 to 28 million and quadruple by 2050 to 60 million riders, depending on future network 
NHHS

Comments of Robert Fromer

June 21, 2012

Page - 58 – 

B-58

configuration options. Moreover, a substantial portion of this growth is expected in small- to 

medium-sized markets, as well as those linking outlying areas of the region to the core urban 

markets between Boston and Washington, D.C. The current rail infrastructure between 

Springfield, Massachusetts, and New Haven, Connecticut, is insufficient to handle the growth 

expected in the Northeast market. Purpose and Need, Section 2.0, Need, paragraph 1.

Fromer Comment #2: The statement and the EA/EIE fail to account for the limiting 

factors of peak fossil fuels and peak raw materials to support such growth in intercity rail 

transportation. Further the statement does not address the error in the claimed growth in 

ridership. Nor does the statement provide the percentage of motor vehicle traffic expected to be 

diverted from area highways and airports as a function of time. This information is essential to 

support the conclusionary statements.

DOT Claim #3: Along with increased congestion along the corridor is a corresponding 

reduction in air quality. CTDOT's Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis, dated March 2, 2009, 

based on CTDOT's Travel Demand Model, predicts that greenhouse gas emissions would 

increase about 20 percent by 2030. Purpose and Need, Section 2.0, Need, paragraph 3.

Fromer Comment #3: I was unable to find DOT's Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis, 

dated March 2, 2009 and DOT's Travel Demand Model as either a reference or appendices. 

These documents should be a part of the EA/EIE.

DOT Claim #4: In section 3.0, DOT evaluated the no build and (preferred) build 

alternatives including. The No-Build Alternative represents conditions in the future analysis year 

(2030) absent implementation of the proposed project, and serves as the future baseline against 

which anticipated effects of the Build Alternative are compared to identify any significant projectrelated impacts. The Build Alternative (the proposed project) would provide for enhanced 

passenger rail service in the NHHS rail corridor; related rail capacity and train speed 

improvements; and rail infrastructure improvements (NHHS Rail Program), which are necessary 

to support the service enhancement. Alternatives Evaluation, Section 3.1.

Fromer Comment #4: The FTA and DOT failed to consider the following feasible and 

prudent alternative within the scope of the NHHS, which is graphically presented in the 

attachment. I suggest the following three (3) alternatives, which the FTA and DOT should 

consider:

(1) Retaining the Elmwood, Newington Junction and Berlin stations on the NHHS, 

and during rush hours eliminate those station stops. This would reduce transit 

times north and south. Also, CTfastrack (aka Busway) in the Amtrak corridor 

should be eliminated while retaining overpasses and new bridges – partial 

CTfastrack, and

(2) (a) Creating two parallel, double track rail corridors between Hartford and Berlin. 

Currently, a mix of single and double tracks exists between New Haven and 

Berlin. Upgrade the current mix to double track. The same applies to the track 

system from Hartford to Springfield,
NHHS

Comments of Robert Fromer

June 21, 2012

Page - 59 – 

B-59

(b) Dividing, at Berlin, the double track corridor into two parallel, double track rail 

corridors from Berlin to Hartford. For descriptive purposes, name the western 

corridor: the New Haven-New Britain-Hartford-Springfield Line and the eastern 

corridor: the New Haven-Springfield Amtrak Line,

(c) Moving local station stops (with the exception of Newington Junction) 

between Meriden and Hartford to the New Haven-New Britain-HartfordSpringfield Line. Those stops include Berlin and Elmwood. The Newington 

Junction station would be replaced by two stations, CCSU-Newington and 

Downtown New Britain. Newington Junction is poorly located because it was 

specifically situated as a transfer stop for the CTfastrack and should be 

eliminated,

(d) Running two parallel services south from Springfield to Hartford-New BritainNew Haven-New York; the other as an express service south from Springfield to 

Hartford-Meriden–New Haven-New York. Same services would be provided for 

the northbound directions. These two services should not terminate in New 

Haven, but continue to Stamford and Greenwich as express trains and as soon 

as the dual-powered equipment (locomotives that also run on 3rd rail) is available 

the trains should terminate in Grand Central Terminal,

(e) Eliminating CTfastrack in the Amtrak corridor and on Newington Secondary 

tracks (Newington Junction to downtown New Britain). Sacrificing CTfastrack

and replacing it with rail service through New Britain allows for more frequent 

service between New Haven-Hartford-Springfield. New overpass and bridgework 

that enhances grade separation of railroad tracks from streets and roads should 

be retained in the Amtrak corridor.

DOT Claim #5: Direct and indirect water quality impacts to surface and groundwater 

resources were assessed for the corridor by overlaying the proposed project onto GIS-based 

maps depicting water resources and surface and groundwater quality classifications.

Station locations where impacts to water quality may be anticipated include:

Newington Station

Runoff from impervious surfaces at the proposed surface parking lot would ultimately be 

discharged into Piper Brook. There also is the potential for increased sedimentation to 

Piper Brook and its tributary stream. Thus, impacts to water quality are possible from 

the proposed Newington Junction Station. The new station, with a fully compliant 

stormwater drainage design, would be an improvement over the quality of runoff that 

currently enters Piper Brook from the existing site.

Windsor Station

There is a potential for water quality impacts to nearby surface water resources (the 

pond) during the period of active construction as well as from stormwater runoff from the 

site once it is fully developed and operational.
NHHS

Comments of Robert Fromer

June 21, 2012

Page - 60 – 

B-60

Windsor Locks Station

Due to the proximity of the Connecticut River to the proposed station site, there is a 

potential for water quality impacts during the period of active construction as well as from 

stormwater runoff from the site once it is fully developed and operational.

Windsor Locks (new alternate station location - historic former station site)

Due to the proximity of the Connecticut River and Kettle Brook to the proposed station 

site, there is a potential for water quality impacts during the period of active construction 

as well as from stormwater runoff from the site once it is fully developed and operational.

Enfield Station

Due to the proximity of the Connecticut River and Kettle Brook to the proposed station 

site, there is a potential for water quality impacts during the period of active construction 

as well as from stormwater runoff from the site once it is fully developed and operational.

Mitigation

In order to avoid or substantially reduce potential water quality impacts associated with 

the proposed project, design details will be developed to avoid adverse impact. Final 

designs will be coordinated and permitted with the CT DEEP and MADEP and other 

resource agencies. All construction activities will comply with the CT DEEP 2004 

Stormwater Quality Manual and the CT DEEP 2002 Erosion and Sedimentation Control 

Guidelines, as well as the 2008 Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook and 2003 Erosion 

and Sediment Control Guidelines for Urban and Suburban Areas. These measures will 

minimize potential water quality impacts associated with the proposed project.

Water Resources and Water Quality, Section 4.3.2., Impacts, Proposed Project

Fromer Comment #5: (A) First, DOT should determine the pollutant concentrations in 

the receiving water bodies at the various locations instead of just citing the WQS classifications 

and making unsupported conclusionary statements. DOT failed to state the reason(s) that the 

watercourses appear on Tables 3-3 and 3-7 of the 2011 Integrated Water Quality Report 

(“IWQR”) list for impaired waters. DOT, also, omitted stating that the watercourses, also, 

appear on the Total Maximum Daily Load (“TMDL”), Priority Ranking List of Impaired Waters 

found in Table 3-8 of the IWQR.

(B) Second, DOT should determine the types of pollutants expected to be generated and 

deposited on impervious surfaces from traffic and in the road bed from trains.

(C) Third, DOT should calculate the projected increase in each pollutant load generated 

and deposited in parking areas and onto the train ballast. This is a recommendation in Chapter 

9 of the Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual (“CTSWQP”).

(D) Fourth, DOT should calculate the pollutant concentrations in stormwater for 

specifically selected storm events, which would be discharged to each of the first treatment 

facility for surface runoff. A similar calculation would apply to the ballasted road bed.

(E) Fifth, DOT would determine using the International Best Management Practices 

Database (“IBMP”), the final pollutant concentrations discharged from the final treatment facility 
NHHS

Comments of Robert Fromer

June 21, 2012

Page - 61 – 

B-61

in a treatment train. A copy of the IBMP is attached, which is, also, available on the Internet at: 

www.bmpdatabase.org.

(F) Sixth, DOT would assess the impact of pollution from the NHHS on the cumulative 

pollution to the affected watercourses.

(G) Seventh, DOT would then fashion a Stormwater Quality Plan as recommended in 

the CTSWQP based on the information gleaned from the above suggestions. The above 

recommended calculations and the Plan should appear in the EA/EIE.

(H) My experience with DOT in the contested case hearing on its application for an 

inland wetlands and watercourses permit from the Connecticut Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection is that the agency will neither perform the calculations nor prepare a 

SWQP. It will offer unsubstantiated statements of improved water quality, which will be taken as 

true even though it is false until proven otherwise since DOT has the burden of minimizing 

environmental harm as a trustee of natural resources.

DOT Claim #6: Based on the preliminary Passenger Service Plan, the proposed project 

would result in a total reduction of 92.65 million miles in VMT of light-duty vehicles and an 

increase of 760,000 gallons of diesel fuel used for train locomotion. Overall energy consumption 

would be reduced (Table 4-31) with increased regional rail ridership, particularly during peak 

hours of travel. The resulting reduction in regional consumption of fossil fuels would reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions.

Table 4-31- Energy Requirements

Change in Fuel Consumption in Design Year (2030)

Reduction

in MVT

Fuel 

Quantity

(Gal)

Fuel 

Type

Energy Content 

(BTU/Gallon)

Energy Consumption 

(1,000,000,000 BTU's) 2

Light Duty 

Vehicles

-

92,650,000 3,369,090 Gasoline 1 120,215 -405

Locomotive N/A 760,000 Diesel 132,915 101

Net Reduction in Energy Consumption -304

Source: CDM Smith, 2011

1: Fuel quantity is based on an average consumption of 27.5 miles per gallon. (National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2010 CAFE Standards)

2: US Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center (AFDC) 

2011, Average of Lower and Higher BTU Values.

Mitigation

Utility service disruptions during construction would be minimized through close coordination of 

construction activities, scheduling with utility providers and advanced notice of any anticipated 
NHHS

Comments of Robert Fromer

June 21, 2012

Page - 62 – 

B-62

outages to nearby customers. Project engineers would coordinate with utility providers to 

minimize environmental and community impacts to the greatest extent practicable.

Public Utilities and Energy, Section 4.4.1, Impacts, Build Alternative

Fromer Comment #6: (A) Neither the Passenger Service Plan nor any other section of 

the EA/EIE provides the calculations for the “total reduction of 92.65 million miles in VMT of 

light-duty vehicles and an increase of 760,000 gallons of diesel fuel used for train locomotion” 

and the reduction in “greenhouse gas emissions.” This lack of analyses is contrary to the NEPA 

requirement for evidence that the agency has made the necessary environmental analyses, 

supra. 

(B) When evaluating projects, FTA and DOT should perform a net energy analysis for 

each proposal. Such analysis shall include calculations of all embodied energy requirements 

used in the materials for initial construction of the facility over its projected useful lifetime. The 

analysis shall be expressed in a dimensionless unit as an energy profit ratio of energy 

generated by the facility to the calculated net energy expended in plant construction, 

maintenance and total fuel cycle energy requirements over the projected useful lifetime of the 

facility. The boundary for both the net energy calculations of the fuel cycle and materials for the 

facility construction and maintenance shall both be at the point of primary material extraction 

and include the energy consumed through the entire supply chain to final, but not be limited to, 

such subsequent steps as transportation, refinement and energy for delivery to the end 

consumer. The results of said net energy analysis shall be included in the results forwarded to

the client. For purposes of this paragraph, "facility net energy" means the heat energy delivered 

by the facility contained in a fuel minus the life cycle energy used to produce the facility. "Fuel 

net energy" means the heat energy contained in a fuel minus the energy used to extract the fuel 

from the environment, refine it to a socially useful state and deliver it to consumers, and 

"embodied energy" means the total energy used to build and maintain a process, expressed in 

calorie equivalents of one type of energy.

All train sets, new track, rail sidings, new and upgraded stations, bridges and culverts, 

etc. require the consumption of energy with the associated production of greenhouse gases. No 

magician waves a magic wand and poof the product or service is produced. Each product or 

service requires numerous processes from the extraction of raw materials to product production 

transportation, assembly and associated externalities to recycling. Such energy consumption 

requires accounting in the EA/EIA for the purpose of reducing energy expenditures and gases. 

Operational energy reduction is not a complete analysis and evaluation of energy requirements.

Consider the life cycle steps requiring energy at each step to produce simple pencil.2

 2 The standard pencil begins when a cedar is cut down. Ropes and gear tug it onto the bed of a 

truck or a rail car.

Think of all the numberless people and skills involved in mining ore to produce steel and refine the 

steel into saws, axes and motors.
NHHS

Comments of Robert Fromer

June 21, 2012

Page - 63 – 

B-63

V. CONCLUSION

The EA/EIE is incomplete and inadequate to support the numerous presumptive 

conclusions.

Cordially,

 

Think of all the people who grow hemp, then transform it, through various stages, into a strong 

rope.

Think of the untold thousands of people who produce the coffee the loggers drink!

The logs are shipped to a mill and cut into slats. The slats are kiln-dried, tinted, waxed, then, kilndried again.

How many skills were needed to produce the tint and the kilns. What about electric power? What 

about the belts, motors and other parts at the mill?

The pencil slats are shipped to a factory. A complex machine cuts grooves into each. A second 

machine lays lead into every other slat. Glue is applied. Two slats are sealed together as one, then, cut 

into lengths that form pencils.

The lead alone is complex; it's not really lead. To produce it, graphite is mined in Ceylon. The 

graphite is, packed and shipped, then mixed with clay from Mississippi. It is treated with wetting 'agents 

— such as sulfonated tallow, which is formed when animal fats chemically react with sulfuric acid.

The pencil receives six coats of lacquer. Lacquer has numerous ingredients,' including castor oil. 

Think of all the chemists needed to create the paint — think of all the castor bean growers needed to 

produce, refine and ship the oil.

The brass end that holds the eraser in place is a marvel. Miners need to first extract zinc and 

copper from the earth. Experts transform those materials into sheet brass, which is then cut, stamped 

and affixed to the pencil.

That brings us to the eraser. It is made from "factice," a rubber-like product that is produced by 

rapeseed oil from the Dutch East Indies reacting with sulfur chloride.

To be sure, an awe-inspiring amount of work goes into producing a pencil. Millions of people 

collaborate to produce it — millions ply their unique trades and skills — yet they have no idea they are 

collaborating.

Each is merely changing his small piece of know-how for the money he needs to buy the goods and 

services he wants.

More amazing is this: No one person is capable of making a pencil. Not even the president of the 

pencil company.

No one person could possibly manage the millions of people — and the millions of decisions they 

make — who produce the ingredients that become a pencil.

Despite the absence of a mastermind, billions of pencils are made every year. They're produced 

with such humdrum efficiency that every one of us takes pencils for granted.

It is a folly for any, man, or group of men, to think of producing something as incredibly complex as 

a pencil. How much harder must it be to produce a car — one that consumers will want to buy, anyhow?
NHHS

Comments of Robert Fromer

June 21, 2012

Page - 64 – 

B-64

___________________________

Robert Fromer

Attachment: International Best Management Practices DataBase
B-65
B-66
B-67
B-68
B-69

Response to Comments from Mr. Fromer June 21, 2012

Fromer Comment No. 1

The energy reduction of passenger service vs. automobile usage is a general average. Section 

4.4.11 of the EA Table 4-31 indicates the energy savings for this proposed project due to diverting 

passengers from the automobile to trains and exceeds the general average value stated in Section 

1.1. Table 4-31 is based on the travel demand models prepared by both Amtrak and CTDOT.

Fromer Comment No. 2

The long range growth projections in the Northeast market are taken from Amtrak’s document “The 

Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan”. Ridership projections for the proposed project are 

based on travel demand models prepared by both Amtrak and CTDOT; the results are included in the 

technical report “Service Development Plan” listed in Section 8.0 of the EA.

Fromer Comment No. 3

The Green House Gas Emmission Analysis can be made available from CTDOT upon request.

Fromer Comment No. 4

Regarding your comments about the Hartford-New Britain busway; that project was studied under a 

separate NEPA document and is, therefore, a different project with a different purpose, need, and 

logical termini than NHHS. 

After coordination with Amtrak and the freight railroads and studying railroad operation models based 

on the future passenger and freight service it has been determined that the tracks improvements 

proposed for the NHHS Rail Project are adequate to provide the future railroad service without 

causing adverse impact to on-time performance or delay; more than two mainline tracks are not 

required.

Fromer Comment No. 5

The EA/EIE is a document to allow FRA to make a decision about the proposed project. It, therefore, 

does not generate the level of detailed information that is needed during final design and 

construction. During the final design process CTDOT will meet all of the regulatory and permitting 

requirements in order to identify and properly mitigate impacts to ground and surface water.

Fromer Comment No. 6

Section 4.4.11 of the EA Table 4-31 indicates the energy savings for this proposed project due to 

diverting passengers from the automobile to trains. Projections of ridership, modal splits, and 

reductions in VMT for the proposed project are based on travel demand models prepared by both 

Amtrak and CTDOT; the results are included in the technical report “Service Development Plan” listed 

in Section 8.0 of the EA.
B-70

2. Summary of Public Comments and Responses

Throughout the public process from May 8 through June 22, 2012 comments were received through the NHHS 

project website or via emails directly to CTDOT. The following is a summary of comments received with the 

corresponding response. The comment number references the section of the EA to which it applies. For clarity and 

brevity, some comments were paraphrased or excerpts were created that capture the principal concerns or issues. 

Where multiple comments were received on the same topic, the comments provided in this listing may be a 

composite of two or more commentators. A full version of the comments received, arranged by author, is provided 

in this appendix as “3. List of Specific Public Comments Keyed to Responses”.

Summary of Comment 1.1 A:

A number of comments strongly support the New Haven Hartford Springfield rail line. They comment that many 

people are excited for real rail travel in the region and that project would bring much needed economic 

development to our region, increase options for travelers, and reduce traffic congestion....and reduce automobile 

air pollution. One person stated that “It would be wonderful to hear more trains and fewer cars” and another asked 

“Please provide the anticipated project cost.”

Response to Comment 1.1 A:

Thank you for your comments in support of the project. Regarding projected price, Section 1.1, pg. 2 of the EA 

indicates that the NHHS Rail Program will cost approximately $650 million to implement.

Summary of Comment 1.3 A:

“I have proposed on a local news website bridging the canal next to the train station platform and closing River Bank 

Road next to the old Montgomery mill to motor vehicle traffic wishing to access the south entrance of the canal trail. 

(Pedestrians and bicycles would still be allowed as well as emergency vehicles.) Redirecting visitors with cars to this 

new access point for the canal trail may obviate the need to place a barrier on Bridge Street that may impact trucks 

entering Ahlstrom’s entrance. My proposal calls for a federal, state and local (Windsor Locks) partnership to pay for 

the expense of constructing the canal bridge.”

Response to Comment 1.3 A:

The additional scope recommended in the comment is not currently included in the NHHS High-Speed Intercity Rail 

Project being constructed by CTDOT. The recommended additional scope item(s) could be pursued as a separate

project by the appropriate agency.

Summary of Comment 1.3 B

Three comments were received requesting that the improvements proposed for New Haven’s State Street Station 

be prioritized and constructed as soon as possible. The following comment from a representative of the City of New 

Haven is representative of these comments:

- “The New Haven City Plan Department and others would like to know why State Street project has been 

pushed to Phase 4 since New Haven has second highest forecasted ridership (1,450 daily riders) as indicated 

in the EA on Page 15. The EA also does not show exact timelines for the completion of the project. New 

Haven is one of the dense urban areas in CT with several people (nearly 40%) using non-motorized 

transportation. New Haven deserves to be included in the current construction project for station and track 

improvements. Also, New Haven population increased by 5% from 2000-2010 and is further expected to 

increase by another 5% from 2010-2015 according to CT Data Center and by 11% from 2010-2020. Several 

on-going developments promoting economic 2020 growth are currently happening in New Haven this 

indicating a strong need for the use of the proposed service in the immediate future.”
B-71

Response to Comment 1.3 B:

As indicated in Table 1-1 and in Sec. 1.3 (on page 10) of the EA, the available funding for the project cannot be used 

for the construction of regional rail stations; CTDOT must therefore apply for future funding from the FTA for 

improvements to New Haven's State Street Station, and proposed new stations in North Haven, Newington, West 

Hartford and Enfield.

Summary of Comment 1.3 C:

Two people commented that “Currently, a mix of single and double track exists between New Haven and Berlin. 

Upgrade the current mix to double track. The same applies to the track system from Hartford to Springfield.”

Response to Comment 1.3 C:

Section 1.3 of the EA, Figure 1-2 (Page 11) indicates that double track will be provided at all single track locations 

between New Haven and Springfield except for the Hartford viaduct and the Connecticut River Bridge. These two 

segments, listed on Page 10 of the EA, are beyond the NHHS Rail Program, not necessary for the currently planned 

NHHS rail corridor service enhancements, and will be advanced as separate projects as necessary.

Summary of Comment 1.3 D:

Two people commented or expressed concern for coordination of this project with the proposed CT FastTrack 

busway project and the proposed reconstruction or replacement of the I-84 viaduct, specifically:

- “The New Britain-Hartford Busway aka CT Fasttrack, Amtrak High Speed Rail Project and the anticipated I-84 

Highway Viaduct replacement project essentially use the same right-of-way. The consideration, 

coordination and discussion of these projects are essential to the economic vitality of the region. We ask 

that better coordination among the related projects and other City initiatives be considered and included in 

the report and planning efforts going forward.”

- “Finally the CT DOT has just committed to a study of the feasibility of relocating both the rail and highway 

viaducts. The EA/EIE document commits to a 20 year life of the existing conditions. We strongly believe that 

the moment to carry out this vision is within build out of the rail project and not 20 years down the road. 

We look forward to working together on these interconnected projects.”

Response to Comment 1.3 D:

Section 1.3 of the EA, Figure 1-2 (Page 11) indicates this project does not include double track in the area of the 

Hartford viaduct. This segment, listed on Page 10 of the EA, is beyond the NHHS Rail Program, not necessary for the 

currently planned NHHS rail corridor service enhancements, and will be advanced as a separate project as necessary. 

At that time it will be completely coordinated with the City of Hartford. The 20 year planning horizon is for the rail 

operations (passenger and freight service) and does not preclude advancing the improvements to the Harford 

viaduct and I 84 viaduct as a separate project earlier than the planning horizon.

Summary of Comment 2.0 A:

Several people either questioned the need to the project altogether or gave their strong support for the project. On 

the former point, some called the project a waste of tax dollars or a boondoggle or questioned the need for high 

speed rail; on the later point, some were in favor of the project because it will alleviate traffic congestion and will be 

“absolutely vital to economic, cultural, recreational, educational development and expansion.”

Response to Comment 2.0 A:

Thank you for your comment expressing your concerns for advancing and funding the project. Section 2.0 of the EA 

identifies the project's "Purpose and Need" which qualitatively and quantitatively define the transportation 

problems that the project addresses and identifies the need for the project. The EA acknowledges the positive 

economic benefits of the project in Sec. 4.5, pg. 194 (Cost Benefit Analysis).
B-72

Summary of Comment 2.0 B:

Several people questioned the geographic extent of improved passenger rail service and suggested that the 

sponsors of the project should extend service to other towns, cities or destinations not currently included in the 

project (including Bradley International Airport, New Britain, Waterbury); and/or expanding physical improvements 

at new or existing stations to provide more convenient access to nearby properties.

Response to Comment 2.0 B:

Thank you for your support of the project. Regarding options for increasing the scope of the project, Section 2.0 of 

the EA identifies the purpose and need for the project which calls for the focus of transportation investment in the 

New Haven to Springfield corridor and does not include diverting trains to other destinations not on the history 

Springfield Line. This proposed action does not preclude future investment in other corridors or adjacent projects

Summary of Comment 2.0 C:

“Operation Concern; Amtrak is moving to E-ticketing this summer. The interface to Amtrak at New Haven must allow 

for this.”

Response to Comment 2.0 C:

Section 2.0 of the EA identifies the purpose and need for the project which calls for addressing the future 

transportation needs of the region for intercity and commuter service. Modern fare collection and a unified fare 

structure is anticipated to be integrated into the system.

Summary of Comment 3.3 A:

“Briefly reviewing the EA, it confirms the need and demand for the North Haven station. Also the maps show no 

new lines need to be constructed between New Haven and North Haven, only renovations. Consideration should be 

given to funding the North Haven station construction to provide an immediate benefit to commuters in the overly 

congested New Haven area.”

Response to Comment 3.3 A:

Thank you for your support of the North Haven Station location alternative. The EA has analyzed the need for rail 

infrastructure to support the increased passenger rail traffic and determined that two tracks are adequate providing 

that the system also has two tracks north of North Haven. Those analysis results are included in Section 4.4.11 of 

the EA. The construction timeline for proposed new stations (including North Haven) will be dependent upon receipt 

of future funding from state and federal sources.

Summary of Comment 3.3 B:

Over three dozen people submitted correspondence stating strong support for moving the Windsor Locks train 

station from its current location on South Main Street to an alternate location in the center of town that is adjacent 

to the town’s historic train station on Main Street. They cited a variety of reasons why the move would benefit the 

town, region and state including:

- The train station would act as a catalyst to revitalize the downtown business district and spur economic 

development (including transit oriented development) and retail along Main St. and the revitalization of the 

old Montgomery Mills.

- This opportunity should not be squandered as we will never get another opportunity to correct the ills of the 

past. 

- Job growth will be a result of this move. 

- The downtown location would increase the ridership on the trains in this area.

- There is a density of housing in the downtown area that is within walking distance of the proposed alternate 

downtown station location; residents of this housing could walk to the station and have better access to jobs 

and medical services in the region.

- Downtown is a better location to connect to Bradley International Airport.
B-73

- The move would build on the reputation of the town being the "Gateway to New England". 

- The existing train station site is remote, dark and is poor for personal security.

- Traffic will adapt to the new location and traffic mitigation measures will offset impacts.

- The downtown location will support efforts to preserve the historic train station.

- The downtown location is more visible and convenient; people will view public transportation as part of 

daily lives rather than some out of the way thing that doesn't concern them.

Response to Comment 3.3 B:

Windsor Locks Station: Two alternative station site options, each including improvements to support a bus shuttle 

connection to Bradley International Airport, were considered for this station. One alternative site is the current rail 

station. The Town of Windsor Locks has stated its preference for relocating the station north of the Town’s Central 

Business District, as part of a proposed renovation and expansion of the Windsor Locks Commons development and 

adjacent to an existing historic station structure. Future (2030) additional parking demand at Windsor Locks Station 

is estimated to be 107 spaces.

During the public comment period and at the Public Hearings, there was overwhelming support from the Town of 

Windsor Locks and the public to relocate the train station north of the Town’s Central Business District (CBD) in the 

vicinity of its original historic site. Both the Town of Windsor Locks and many Windsor Locks’ residents expressed 

their opinion that such a decision would result in the train station becoming a catalyst for Transit Oriented 

Development (TOD) and the re-vitalization of the CBD. A few residents expressed concerns relative to unacceptable 

traffic congestion and the perceived viability of a re-vitalized CBD.

CTDOT supports the Town’s goal of TOD and re-vitalization. Insofar as Phase 3B (which includes the Windsor Locks 

station) is not currently funded, future funding sources would need to be identified in order to construct any station 

improvements in Windsor Locks.

Summary of Comment 3.3 C:

A representative of the Housing Authority of the Town of Enfield (EHA) stated support of the project and requested 

attention to the need to repair an undersized stormwater culvert located on railroad property that is apparently 

causing flooding on EHA property.

Response to Comment 3.3 C:

The improvement being proposed under the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail 

(NHHS HSIPR) Project are directly related to making improvements to the existing infrastructure to allow for 

increased capacity and higher speeds. Since Amtrak is the owner of the railroad right of way, CTDOT is not 

responsible for maintenance or state of good repair items that are not directly related to increasing the speed and 

capacity of the railroad. 

Many of the bridges and culverts along the corridor require rehabilitation or replacement because they cannot 

withstand the additional loading of a second track in their present condition. These bridges are included in the 

scope of work. Also, certain culverts along the corridor are undersized to the point where they are causing flood 

waters to overtop the rail, thereby reducing the speed that trains can operate. 

These culverts are also included in the scope of work. However the culvert at Milepost 52.92 is in good condition; 

and, although its limited capacity is causing flooding in the area, the flooding is not severe enough to cause flooding 

of the track structure. Therefore, the culvert at Milepost 52.92 is not included in the scope of work for the NHHS 

HSIPR Project. 

You are encouraged to contact Amtrak directly to discuss possible solutions to the flooding problems in Enfield 

under a separate action.
B-74

Summary of Comment 3.3 D:

Several people questioned why the passenger rail service associated with this project could not be extended west to 

New Britain and Waterbury and some suggested or stated that the proposed New Britain to Hartford busway project 

(CT FastTrack) should be cancelled since it would obstruct rail freight service or would preclude the future extension 

of passenger rail service to these central Connecticut cities located southwest of Hartford.

Response to Comment 3.3 D:

Thank you for your support of the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield (NHHS) Rail Project. Regarding your comments 

about the Hartford-New Britain busway; that project was studied under a separate NEPA document and is, 

therefore, a different project with a different purpose, need, and logical termini than NHHS. 

Regarding your recommendation that rail service be provided to New Britain, the NHHS Rail Project is funded as an 

intercity rail initiative rather than a commuter rail program. Therefore, providing commuter service to New Britain 

would have to be part of a separate project. 

After coordination with Amtrak and the freight railroads and studying railroad operation models based on the future 

passenger and freight service it has been determined that the tracks improvements proposed for the NHHS Rail 

Project are adequate to provide the future railroad service without causing adverse impact to on-time performance 

or delay; more than two mainline tracks are not required.

Summary of Comment 3.3 E:

“While the Judd Square Station site would be close to my home, and therefore personally desirable, my constituents 

have expressed some fear of traffic harming their children at the bus pull-in. If you select Judd Square, please use 

fencing to protect pedestrians of the Judd Square complex. The Town Council prefers North Cherry Street to avoid 

construction of a parking garage and to keep Ward Street open for emergency vehicles to cross the tracks when 

train is in the station.”

Response to Comment 3.3 E:

Thank you for your comment stating your opinions regarding the alternative locations for the Wallingford Station. 

The Town of Wallingford has formally recommended that the station be constructed at Parker St as the locally 

preferred alternative. Based on this input CTDOT has decided to follow the public's recommendation and locate the 

station at Parker St.

Summary of Comment 3.3 F:

“In Wallingford, please use the historic downtown station location, perhaps creating car overpasses or underpasses 

so the trains do not block car traffic.”

Response to Comment 3.3 F:

Section 3.3 of the EA (Page 17) indicates that the existing station location is not compatible with the addition of 

high-level platforms, which would block streets. Overpasses or underpasses to avoid grade crossings would require 

significant acquisition of property; homes and businesses.

Summary of Comment 4.1 A:

Two communications were received urging the sponsors of the project to minimize environmental impacts of the 

construction and operations of the rail line to the extent possible. 

Response to Comment 4.1 A:

The project will largely consist of reestablishing the historic second track and that all of the possible impacts and 

mitigation is outlined in the document, attachments, and appendix on the web site.
B-75

Summary of Comment 4.2.1 A:

“I am concerned about additional trains in this corridor running on diesel fuel. New Haven is considered an 

environmental justice community by the state of Connecticut because of its combination of heavy pollution and 

socio-economic deprivation. Residents are subjected to pollution from two interstate highways, a sludge incinerator, 

a major regional port with diesel traffic, multiple cement batching facilities, transfer stations, and chemical 

manufacturers. 20% of New Haven children have asthma, the highest rate in the state. We cannot bear the burden 

of any increased toxic air emissions.”

Response to Comment 4.2.1 A:

Section 4.2.1 of the EA (Page 38) indicates that the proposed project would not result in any local or regional shortterm or long-term adverse air quality impact. Also, Section 4.4.11 of the EA (Page 169) indicates that the project 

would reduce overall energy consumption by 304 billion BTU's per year because of the reduction of automobile 

usage. The reduction in energy consumption is directly proportional to a reduction in greenhouse gas emission.

Summary of Comment 4.2.2 A:

A few people who live adjacent to or close to the rail line expressed concern about noise associated with increased 

train service.

Response to Comment 4.2.2 A:

Most of noise impacts associated with the project are due to train horn noise as trains approach and pass through 

grade crossings along the corridor. As noted on pg. 52 in Sec. 4.2.2 of the EA, "As part of the project, Amtrak will 

install supplemental safety devices required for Quiet Zone designation at all public crossings along the NHHS 

corridor, enabling mitigation of train horn noise. Amtrak and the local municipalities affected would need to jointly 

sponsor Quiet Zone applications for FRA approval."

Summary of Comment 4.4.3 A:

Some people expressed concern and/or had questions about legislation, policies and procedures related to the EA or 

the acquisition of property required to undertake the actions identified in the EA.

Response to Comment 4.4.3 A:

The Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) appreciates your concerns relative to the proposed rail 

station in West Hartford. 

This site is one of the four new regional stations being planned. It should be noted that currently there is no funding 

in place to move forward with this station or any of the new station locations. The project is being funded by the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) through the American Recoveries and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) as High Speed 

Intercity Passenger Rail Service from New Haven to Springfield. Because the station at Flatbush Avenue is 

considered a regional station (it would increase the benefits of improved rail service by also accommodating 

commuter service) it is not eligible for FRA funding. CTDOT intends to apply for future Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) funding to construct the four new regional stations at North Haven, Newington, West Hartford, 

and Enfield, as well as, provide an additional platform at the State Street station in New Haven. 

No Rights-of-Way action for the West Hartford station is pending at this time. The applicable law and mitigation of 

impacts related to any property acquisitions associated with the project is as follow:

Section 4.4.3 of the EA (Pages 96 and 98) states that:

• Applicable Law: CTDOT is required to comply with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970 and provide monetary and other relocation assistance to displaced 

property owners whose properties are acquired for the implementation of federally funded projects.
B-76

• Mitigation: In order to mitigate the acquisition of properties for station construction, affected property 

owners will be afforded relocation assistance through the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970. CTDOT is authorized and required to provide monetary and other 

relocation assistance to displaced property owners whose properties would be acquired for implementation 

of the proposed federally funded project.

Section 5.2 of the EA (Pages 201 and 202) identifies meetings held with West Hartford local officials on 4/29/2011 

and 7/27/2011 to review the proposed project including the site selection process for proposed new train stations 

as well as parking layout.

Summary of Comment 4.4.6 A:

“...Will we be notified if the landscaping along the tracks and our homes will be altered?” 

Response to Comment 4.4.6 A:

Visual Resources and Quality is an environmental resource included in Section 4.4.6 that the project intends to 

maintain. There will be public meetings during design phase at which time decisions regarding landscaping will be 

made.

Summary of Comment 4.4.6 B:

“What is the reason the historic train station (at Windsor Locks) cannot be used as a train station again - is it solely 

cost?”

Response to Comment 4.4.6 B:

Cost is a consideration but not the prevailing consideration in determining if an existing structure can or should be 

renovated and adapted to meet the demands of a modern transportation facility. Other considerations include 

building code issues and challenges and life-safety systems that often make adapting old structures to modern 

functions impractical, especially if the structure is listed on the state or national registers of historic places (the 

Windsor Locks historic station is nationally listed as indicated in Sec. 4.4.6 of the EA). Improvements that would 

negatively affect the historic integrity or character of such buildings might be considered an unacceptable impact; 

also, the construction of high-level platforms and pedestrian overpass has the potential for adverse visual impact on 

this historic station.

Summary of Comment 4.4.10 A:

“I think this project is a good thing, especially for commuters who do not have access to a car or cannot drive due to 

disability related reasons. I would like to see if any of the stops will connect to universities (CCSU, Naugatuck Valley, 

University of Hartford, UCONN Hartford Campus, etc.) and major workplaces in those areas that attract a lot of jobs. 

That may have even more appeal for people like me who have even more difficulty finding a job because of a 

disability.”

Response to Comment 4.4.10 A:

Thank you for your comment in support of the project. Discussion of the existing and proposed train stations that 

will experience increased passenger rail service under this project is provided in Sec. 4.4.1 of the EA. Discussion on 

transit, parking and pedestrian access to existing and proposed train stations is provided in Sec. 4.4.10 of the EA.

Summary of Comment 4.4.10 B:

One commentator indicated that he approves the high speed rail program but does not approve of the location for 

the Meriden Train Station and platforms. He suggested that a location north of the present station next to State 

Street Extension would be better since he believed that “no street crossings would be blocked by gates” since 

“...Camp Street has a bridge that goes over the (railroad) right of way.”
B-77

Response to Comment 4.4.10 B:

Section 4.4.10 of the EA details the anticipated impacts that increased train service would have on traffic operations 

at existing at-grade crossings and improvements that will be implemented to mitigate these impacts. Page 164 

contains statement "Intersections adjacent to the Meriden Station will not deteriorate in LOS (level of service of 

traffic operations) due to grade crossings compared to the no-build conditions and there are no adverse impacts.

Summary of Comment 4.4.10 C:

“Why will the track speed rating be restricted to a 110 MPH limit when many European nations have trains traveling 

at much higher speeds on rails with ratings well above that on a regular basis?” 

Response to Comment 4.4.10 C:

Train speeds are a function of many factors including distance between stops, frequency of at-grade crossings and 

track alignment. The proposed train speeds along the corridor are shown in Appendix D of the reference document 

"Service Development Plan". Section 8.0 of the EA provides instructions for reviewing reference documents.

Summary of Comment 4.4.10 D:

“Can the old and new track lines handle heavy and oversized freight trains and at what times since there eventually 

is going to be 25 round trips by the commuter trains traveling on them?”

Response to Comment 4.4.10 D:

Section 4.4.10 of the EA, Tables 4-25 through 4-27 indicate that the anticipated delay to freight service in the future 

build case would be about the same as the future no-build case. Therefore, the infrastructure has enough capacity 

to accommodate all of the projected freight and passenger service. Oversized trains are operated under a special 

permit and schedule; the track configuration would be designed to accommodate such movements.

Summary of Comment 4.4.10 E:

“Will commuter parking at the rail stations be free or are fees going to be imposed on the traveling public and if 

there is a fee how will it be regulated and where will the moneys collected go towards?”

Response to Comment 4.4.10 E:

Section 4.4.10 of the EA, Table 4-30 indicates the number of parking spaces required at each station and that 

parking at New Haven, Hartford, and Springfield stations would be administered by local parking authorities. All 

other station parking would be administered by CTDOT where no parking fees are anticipated at this time.

Summary of Comment 4.4.10 F:

Several people questioned the degree to which bicycle accommodations will be provided at stations and on trains 

and requested unboxed, roll-on bicycle access onto all trains running on the New Haven-Springfield corridor and 

sheltered or covered bicycle parking slots at stations.

Response to Comment 4.4.10 F:

Section 4.4.10 of the EA (Pg. 167) includes bicycle access to stations and bicycle storage. It does not identify 

facilities on the train. Such decisions could be made during final design and equipment selection.

Summary of Comment 4.4.10 G:

One commentator criticized the proposed alternative to move the Windsor Locks station to the town center of 

Windsor Locks citing concerns about traffic congestion and delay that may occur along Main St and Bridge St. when 

trains stop at the station and gates at at-grade crossings remain closed during passenger exiting and boarding; 

especially considering greater frequency of train service. He indicated that “this significant traffic congestion would 

be discouraging to any prospective developers looking to invest in construction of commercial and business 

enterprises along Main St....”.
B-78

Response to Comment 4.4.10 G:

Thank you for your comments expressing concerns for the traffic operations associated with the alternative to move 

the Windsor Locks train station to Main Street. Future traffic operations under the Build Condition (proposed action) 

have been studied in detail for all station sites and for all alternative station sites. Key findings of these studies is 

summarized in Sec. 4.4.10 of the EA including anticipated traffic impacts and proposed mitigation measures to bring 

traffic operations to an acceptable level of service.

Summary of Comment 4.4.10 H:

Many commented or questioned the proposed passenger rail schedule or frequency of service to and from specific 

stations along the corridor as well as stations that the new service will connect to, such as stations along the 

Connecticut shoreline and in New York City. One commentator questioned whether passenger service could be 

provided to Boston.

Response to Comment 4.4.10 H:

A Passenger Service Plan is provided in Appendix 2 of the EA document. The seven day conceptual schedule includes 

the last southbound train leaves Springfield at 7:59 PM and the last northbound train leaves New Haven at 9:15 PM. 

The conceptual schedule also indicates the train through to New York City and other points south. A detailed 

schedule including weekends will be developed when operations begin. The current conceptual schedule does not 

include trains to Boston. Trains to Boston are part of a program being advanced by MassDOT. 

Summary of Comment 4.4.10 I:

Several people noted that improved rail transit and new train stations present an opportunity for Connecticut to 

implement transit oriented development (TOD) or dense mixed-use development which would be less auto-oriented 

and would create more walkable and livable towns and cities along the corridor. Some questioned the need for 

parking lots surrounding train stations and expressed concern that such parking was not consistent with TOD 

strategies of encouraging development and improving walkability at and near the stations and that some of that 

parking could be either built by the private sector or eliminated if better bus connections or shuttles could be 

provided to and from the stations. 

Response to Comment 4.4.10 I:

Section 4.4.10 of the EA (Pages 153, 165, and 166) discusses that the existing parking in the area of the stations is 

not adequate to support the projected ridership for 2030. The travel demand models completed by CTDOT and 

Amtrak were used to determine the modal split (riders getting out of their autos and boarding the train). Specific 

parking capacity requirements, based on those models, are included in Table 4-30. The basis of the modal splits and 

parking capacity requirements is a reference document (Data Collection/Ridership Analysis) which can be made 

available as described in Section 8.0 of the EA. Except for New Haven, Hartford, and Springfield the final layout of 

the station, pedestrian access, bus stalls, auto access, and parking layout will be determined during final design. As 

noted in Table 4-30, parking for New Haven, Hartford, and Springfield would not be constructed as part of this 

project but will be addressed and advanced by the local parking authorities to be compatible with their downtown 

development plans.

Summary of Comment 4.4.11 A:

Two people spoke in favor of the project and noted that improved mass transit will provide positive impact of fewer 

cars being used and a resulting reduction of carbon emissions. 

Response to Comment 4.4.11 A:

Thank you for your comment in support of the project. The EA acknowledges the positive impacts associated with 

the reduction of vehicles miles traveled by cars in Sec. 4, pg. 169 (Energy) and in Sec. 4, pg. 194 (Cost Benefit 

Analysis). Section 4.4.11 of the EA (pg 169) identifies the anticipated annual reduction of over 90 Million Vehicle 

Miles Traveled (VMT) due to people using the train in lieu of automobiles.
B-79

Summary of Comment 4.4.12 A:

“The EA contains several errors on the identification of Windsor sites in the HazMat and Leachate Waste maps of 

Vol. II. ...”

Response to Comment 4.4.12 A:

The reference data sources have been reviewed and determined that there are a number of sites incorrectly placed 

on the mapping as well as locations where the town of "South Windsor" is incorrectly noted. After revisiting the 

hazardous material sites in the study area we have determined that there are no CERCLIS or waste water leachate 

sites in Windsor. Revised mapping will be available after the comment period closes.

Summary of Comment 4.4.13 A:

“...There is no fence next to some of the property along the tracks, will you be upgrading the old fencing?”

Response to Comment 4.4.13 A:

Discussion on fencing existing and proposed along the NHHS rail corridor is provided in Sec. 4.4.13 of the EA. As 

mitigation a fencing policy would be established to provide protection in areas of known trespassing and at 

recreation and school locations.

Summary of Comment 4.4.13 B:

Several people had questions or concerns about safety or personal security on trains and at the stations and as well 

as questions about the ownership, management and maintenance of the new improvements, such as:

- “Will there be security scanning implementation at all rail stops to keep passengers safe on the trains...? – 

“Who will own, manage and secure the rail stations as well as the parking around them?”

- “As traffic usage increases on all these tracks then please provide some details as to how maintenance will 

be improved from past practices which will prevent bridges, culverts, rail beds, etc., to decay into a state of 

disrepair and keep the lines fully operational?”

Response to Comment 4.4.13 B:

Safety and security measures of the project are identified in Section 4.4.13 of the EA document. Applicable laws 

address safety, security, and maintenance. The NHHS Rail Program would conform to all applicable requirements. 

These measures would be incorporated into a comprehensive NHHS System Safety Program that ensures the 

development and coordination of responsibilities for implementing key safety and security policies.

Summary of Comment 4.4.13 C:

The following questions relate to crossings shown on Dwg. No. PLN-19 “Concept Design” – Plan, MP 39.5 to MP 

41.7”: 

a) Do the labeled crossing gate improvements reflect existing or proposed conditions? 

b) If the later, the Wilson Ave. crossing at MP 39.8 is labeled “Flashers” and does not indicate Gates. 

c) Does CTDOT or Amtrak intend to close this crossing? If a crossing is labeled “Flashers and Gates” does that 

indicate that the gates will be full quad gates with median island (i.e. meet the standard for Quiet Zone 

designation)? 

Response to Comment 4.4.13 C:

Section 4.4.13 of the EA, Table 4-34 identifies the Proposed Action at grade crossings. Per Table 4-34 Wilson Avenue 

is a Private at Grade crossing to be closed. Other grade crossings in Windsor will receive either two quad gates and a 

median or four quad gates. These improvements make them eligible to be designated as "Quiet Zones".

Summary of Comment 4.4.15 A:

Three individuals had questions or comments about the type of equipment that will be used for the new service: 

diesel or electric locomotives, summarized as follows:
B-80

- “Did planners of this project looked at the possibility of using Diesel Multiple Units (DMU) to serve the New 

Haven-Springfield Line since they are a good type of train to use because of the noise factor and efficiency 

and that way the electrification of the line could be put off for some time?”

- “When will new modern electric locomotives be put into service here on this route?”

- “The real benefit of this project would be if the line is re-electrified to provide a one seat ride to and from 

Grand Central Terminal.”

Response to Comment 4.4.15 A:

Future electrification of the line is presented in the EA on page 185; the opening service intends to use diesel 

equipment. At this time Amtrak is planning to use locomotives (Appendix 2 of the EA) for the intercity trains with 

only a locomotive change at New Haven to provide intercity passengers a "one seat" ride. Using DMU's would 

require that intercity passengers change trains. The final equipment decision for the non-intercity trips has not 

been completed and DMU's are a potential choice.

Summary of Comment 4.5 A:

A few people questioned costs of the project versus its benefits, for example:

- “Your web site makes many claims about growth in ridership, reduction in car trips, etc. Where can I find a 

copy of the economic impact analysis?” 

- “Please explain how commuter rail service will be managed to pay for itself and stay solvent and sustainable 

at any duration?”

- “What can be done to make riding the rail more affordable for more riders?...How many will ride when it 

becomes more expensive?” 

Response to Comment 4.5 A:

The economic impact of the project is presented in the Cost Benefit Analysis provided in Sec. 4.5, pg. 194 and 

Appendix 7 of the EA.

Summary of Comment 4.5 B:

“The Bicycle touring companies and organizations are losing business because of the lack of an adequate rail 

system.” 

Response to Comment 4.5 B:

Section 4.5 of the EA (Page 194) identifies benefits of the project. One of these benefits is to create more livable 

and sustainable communities by integrating compact, mixed-use TOD with pedestrian and bike-friendly design at 

station areas to allow people to use their cars less, and walk, bike and use transit more. TOD contributes to a more 

active, healthy lifestyle and more vibrant communities.
B-81

3. List of Specific Public Comments Keyed to Responses

Throughout the public process from May 8 through June 22, 2012 comments were received through the NHHS 

project website or via emails directly to CTDOT. The following is a listing of those comments in alphabetical order by 

the author’s last name. The numerical portion of the response number references the portion of the EA to which it 

applies. The responses to the comments are included in “2. Summary of Public Comments and Responses”.

First 

Name

Last 

Name Submission Content

Response 

to 

Comments

Windsor 

Locks 

Economic 

and 

Industrial 

Development

 Due to the proposed bus link to Bradley International Airport, Windsor Locks is slated 

to be a stop on all three proposed rail components: high speed, inter-city, and commuter 

rail. Four years ago we requested that Amtrak and DOT investigate relocating the train 

station stop from its current location at the outskirts of downtown back to its historic 

location at the heart of Main Street. The Town of Windsor Locks is bound and 

determined to relocate the Amtrak stop as it will be the catalyst to the revitalization of our 

Main Street. We appreciate DOT’s support for our initiative over the last year. 

 Relocating the train station would help in the redevelopment of a vacant mill complex, 

the Montgomery Building, into residential condominiums, as well as the restoration of the 

historic train station that has remained vacant for three decades. Unlike the current train 

platform location, the proposed relocation site has adjacent land that can be developed 

into residential and commercial uses that would complement the rail service. This project 

furthers several state development goals: Main Street revitalization; redevelopment of 

brownfields; Transit Oriented Development; and mass transportation. 

 The Town, at its cost, hired a nationally recognized firm in railroad signalization, 

Campbell Technologies, to study the feasibility of relocating the train platform. Campbell 

Technologies concluded that the station could be relocated with some signal 

enhancements. DOT was provided the results of the Town’s study and embarked on a 

review of its own concluding with traffic management enhancements the relocation is 

feasible. 

 We are passionate about this project because we believe our Main Street would be a 

poster-child for Transit Oriented Development. We urge your continued assistance in 

making this revitalization effort a reality. 

3.3 B

Jonh I think you need to move extension to New Britane, Waterbery and eliminated busway to 

New Britane.

2.0 B

Bob Anderson Dear Sir: I would like to add my voice in encouraging that the train station platform be 

returned to the center of downtown Windsor Locks. If you have ever taken or returned to 

the existing location you would know how desolate and unattractive this location is. It is 

not conducive to encourage anyone to take the train from this location or to get off from 

a late arrival. I would have to believe that passenger location closer to downtown would 

help sway potential clients to use the rails system with a feeling of security as well access

to the businesses located near there. The original location of the train station was chosen 

for reason's I have stated above and I believe that it should be returned. 

Yours Truly, Bob Anderson

3.3 B

Mart Andryzeck Re: Windsor Locks Train Station 

What is the reason the historic train station cannot be used as a train station again - is it 

solely cost? Marti

4.4. 6 B

Thomas Arroyo Great idea!!!! It should pass, it will benefit the state in many ways. I strongly support this 

project. T. Arroyo

1.1 A

John Asp The State's plan demonstrates a long cherished tradition in Connecticut Government, 

spend the taxpayers money on whatever stupid idea comes along, regardless of the 

need. We are broke and yet you idiots spend like you just won the lottery, shelve this 

scheme.

2.0 A
B-82

First 

Name

Last 

Name Submission Content

Response 

to 

Comments

Susmitha Attota I represent the New Haven City Plan Department. I am curious to know why State 

Street project has been pushed to Phase 4 since New Haven has second highest 

forecasted ridership (1,450 daily riders) as indicated in the EA on Page 15. The EA also 

does not show exact timelines for the completion of the project. New Haven is one of the 

dense urban areas in CT with several people (nearly 40%) using non-motorized 

transportation. New Haven deserves to be included in the current construction project for 

station and track improvements.

 Also, New Haven population increased by 5% from 2000-2010 and is further expected 

to increase by another 5% from 2010-2015 according to CT Data Center and by 11% 

from 2010-2020. Several on-going developments promoting economic 2020 growth 

currently happening in New Haven this indicating a strong need for the use of the 

proposed service in the immediate future.

1.3 B

Mike Barile Hi Mark, I want to voice my support for the relocation of the existing train station to be 

relocated in the towns downtown center. I am also in favor of the high speed project that 

would stop over in Windsor Locks.

The relocation of our existing station would add spark and vitality back into the main 

street corridor. It would be good for business, It would attract new business. As a 

business owner who operates on Main Street, I would love to see the downtown area 

vibrant again, just like I did as a kid growing up here in the 60's. The "foot" traffic would 

increase. New apartments and condos could possibly spring up all around the area, bring 

in young people, and eliminate the ghost town feeling that our urban renewal project 

delivered to us in the 70's. This is our one chance to right that wrong, and at the same 

time make our downtown area a section to be proud of again. Please convey my 

feelings, and do everything possible to make this work. 

Regards, Mike Barile, Alaimo & Barile Real Estate

3.3 B

Carl Barnes Re: Windsor Locks train station

Good morning. I am writing this quick note as I am unable to attend the meeting this week 

as I will be away on vacation. I am a board member on the W.L. chamber and believe the 

move of the railroad station to the center of town is crucial to the town being able to 

revitalize main street. Hopefully you will hear from the many people that I have talked with 

regarding this move. I have not heard one person who had anything negative on this 

subject. Sorry for not being their in person for the meeting, but Lake Champlain and 8 

days of fishing is awaiting us.....thanks for your time and effort in making this a reality in in 

our town......thanks.....Carl.

3.3 B
B-83

First 

Name

Last 

Name Submission Content

Response 

to 

Comments

Eric Barz, 

AICP

1. The EA contains several errors on the HazMat and Leachate Waste maps of Vol. 

II. Here are the issues, listed by Map No.: 

Map 18A: Two labels inaccurately state “South Windsor”...they should state 

“Windsor”. The “Bristol Babcock inst” HazMat label is a reference to a company that 

does not exist in the Town of Windsor. The Leachate Waste Water symbol for “Taylor 

& Fenn” is located on the wrong side of 291. The Leachate Waste Water symbol for 

”Stanadyne Inc.” is located under the bridge of 291 and in the river. The “caruso 

property” HazMat label is a reference to a company that does not exist in the Town of 

Windsor. 

Map 18B: The symbol for the “bristol babcock inst” HazMat label should be removed. 

The Leachate Waste Water symbol for “Taylor & Fenn” is located on the wrong side 

of 291. The “ashland chemical/kyova corp” HazMat label is a reference to a company 

that does not exist in the Town of Windsor. 

Map 19A: Question: Does the “Loomis Institute” really have a Leachate Waste Water 

site in the woods? The “ability machine and tool company” HazMat label is a 

reference to a company that does not exist in the Town of Windsor.

Map 19B: The “ability machine and tool company” HazMat label should be removed. 

The Leachate Waste Water symbol for “The Town of South Windsor” is located in the 

woods, Town officials suspect that the symbol could have something to do with 

Windsor’s former Public Works Garage, which is closer to the street; James Burke, 

Windsor’s Economic Development Director, may have further information about this 

site. 

Map 20A:

2. There are apparent errors on other map sets of Vol. II of the EA: Error on the 

“Community Facility” (Map No. 8A): Label inaccurately states “South Windsor”...it 

should state “Windsor”. Error on the “Farmland Soils” (Map No. 18A): Two labels 

inaccurately state “South Windsor”...they should state “Windsor”.

The “Kenyon Building” HazMat label is a reference to a company that does 

not exist in the Town of Windsor. The “chestel incorporated contel ipc” HazMat label 

is a reference to a company that does not exist in the Town of Windsor. The “deep 

river manufacturing company” HazMat label is a reference to a company that does not 

exist in the Town of Windsor. 

4.4.12 A

Eric Barz, 

AICP

The following questions relate to crossings shown on Dwg. No. PLN-19 “Concept Design” 

– Plan, MP 39.5 to MP 41.7”: 

a) Do the labeled crossing gate improvements reflect existing or proposed conditions? 

b) If the later, the Wilson Ave. crossing at MP 39.8 is labeled “Flashers” and does not 

indicate Gates. 

c) Does CTDOT or Amtrak intend to close this crossing? If a crossing is labeled “Flashers 

and Gates” does that indicate that the gates will be full quad gates with median island (i.e. 

meet the standard for Quiet Zone designation)?

4.4.13 C

David Bedell Provide rail service to New Britain so we don't have to build the proposed busway. 3.3 D

David Bedell In Wallingford, please use the historic downtown station location, perhaps creating car 

overpasses or underpasses so the trains do not block car traffic. 

3.3 F

David Bedell I hope you will provide state-of-the-art bicycle parking facilities at all stations, like in New 

Haven, and allow bicycles on all trains (hanging racks like on the new rail cars are the 

best option). 

4.4.10 F

David Bedell Include some train service extending to Northampton in the north and to NYC in the 

south, to accommodate long distance travel without transfers.

4.4.10 H

Barbara Bertrand I have a grandson that we brought to Windsor Locks to take the train to Springfield. The 

station that exists is in no mans land and really needs to be moved to the center of 

Windsor Locks. The economic impact for that town would be tremendous and the ripple 

affect of this move would bring vibrancy to a depressed area. I would like nothing better 

than to go to Windsor Locks, have lunch on a spring day at an outside restaurant and 

watch the trains come and go. It would be exciting. I also have a son that lives in 

Manhattan and have taken the train from the station that exists. If you haven't come in 

later in the evening and had one of the lights out and the darkness it is terrible. I don't 

take the train anymore because they run late and the stations location.

3.3 B
B-84

First 

Name

Last 

Name Submission Content

Response 

to 

Comments

Scott Bertrand The Housing Authority of the Town of Enfield (EHA) is stakeholder in the proposed 

railroad upgrades. It is our understanding that the proposed improvements to the New 

Haven-Hartford-Springfield rail corridor will have a positive impact on the EHA’s moderate 

rental housing developments that borders both sides of the existing railroad line in 

Enfield. 

 The EHA owns and manages 174 duplex townhouse style units of State of 

Connecticut financed moderate rental housing on Green Valley Drive, Laurel Park, 

Nutmeg Avenue, and Pearl Street. The Laurel Park property abuts the railroad right of 

way. The area of land that our buildings occupy has specific drainage issues that we are 

addressing with the civil engineering consultant firm, Weston & Sampson, (W&S). About 

60% of the water runoff flowing onto our property and, through the town storm sewer 

system is from adjacent properties and town road surfaces including a bordering high 

school and also private lands on Nutmeg Avenue. All of this water flows to an undersized 

railroad owned culvert; (C 52.92) located near the junction of Green Valley Drive and 

Laurel Park. This culvert is only 24” in diameter. Weston & Sampson has determined 

that the size of this culvert is grossly inadequate to handle significant storm events. 

 During significant storms we have observed water backing up to the degree that the 

pressure has lifted storm sewer manhole covers. We often experience ponding water at 

the bottom of Nutmeg Avenue where it meets Laurel Park Drive. The back yards of our 

units at the lower end of the property flood with ponding water evident in many yard 

areas. Weston & Sampson has determined that the EHA overall watershed calculations 

for a 2 year storm event is; 53.04 cfs; a 5 year storm event is 74.26 cfs and a 10 year 

storm event is 82.21 cfs. The culvert, according to Weston & Sampson, has a capacity of 

only 41 cfs with a headwater elevation of 72 feet. Anything higher will flood the 

backyards of our properties. 

 It is our understanding that culvert; C52.92 will be replaced and/or upgraded as part of 

the proposed improvements. Therefore, the Housing Authority of the Town of Enfield 

supports proposed upgrades to the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield rail corridor. Please 

feel free to contact me should you need any additional information. 

Sincerely, Scott C. Bertrand, Executive Director

3.3 C

Kevin Brace Please save our Main Street and bring the platform back to the center of Town. Thank 

you.

3.3 B

Leonard Brace I am excited about the prospect of the train station moving back to the center of our town. 

I believe this would be a positive move to bring our downtown back to life. Many of our 

residents are talking about this in hopes that it will finally happen. Please relocate the 

train station back to the center of town as it once was. Thank You, Leonard Brace

3.3 B

Marsha Brace I fully support the relocation of the train station into town where it used to be. This is one 

of the last historical landmarks we have left and we need to preserve it.

3.3 B

Eric Buhrendorf Please run late trains at least Friday and Saturday nights. 4.4.10 H

Eric Buhrendorf Subject: NH H S Comments and requests

Hi Mark, I have written letters to Amtrak and government leadership in towns along the 

rail. I was excited to hear about this effort. I moved to Berlin in summer ’10 and was 

excited to find the train station as an available resource. One thing that deeply saddens 

and frustrates me however is that there are no late trains running. This means Friday or 

Saturday night we can’t take the train into the city for dinner, theatre or cocktail hours and 

get home. Please comment this to the powers that be. I think being able to have night life 

on the weekends at least would take more drunk drivers off the road and boost economic 

activity in the cities. 

Thanks, Eric Buhrendorf – Berlin Town Council member

4.4.10 H

Margaret Byrne I would like to see the train stop moved to the original location, north of the Route 140 

bridge. There is opposition complaining of delays crossing the bridge. However I have 

heard that the loading of passengers onto forward or rear cars could alleviate that. Is that 

true? Having ridden MetroNorth to NYC, there are many stations at which only certain 

cars open for embarkation and disembarkation.

3.3 B
B-85

First 

Name

Last 

Name Submission Content

Response 

to 

Comments

Sue Caldon It is my pleasure to write a letter in support of relocating the Windsor Locks Amtrak 

Station from the south end of Main Street back to the heart of our downtown district. This 

move will be the beginning of the revitalization of Main Street in Windsor Locks and serve 

as a catalyst to build on the reputation of our town being the "Gateway to New England". 

If there is anything that I can do to help facilitate the relocation of the Windsor Locks 

Amtrak Station, up to and including knocking on doors to acquire petition signatures, 

please let me know.

3.3 B

Craig Carr This is needed more than ever and better rail between Springfield and Boston and is a 

way overdue must.

1.1 A

Chance Carter I was wondering if the planners of this project looked at the possibility of using Diesel 

Multiple Units (DMU) to serve the New Haven-Springfield Line. From what I have 

gathered, they are a good type of train to use because of the noise factor and their 

efficiency and that way the electrification of the line could be put off for some time.

4.4.15 A

Ann Charbonn

eau

As a resident of town and located behind the plaza that includes newly opened CJ's 

Ranch restaurant I hope every day to see improvements in the area. I believe that 

moving the train station to the center of town would be the first step to improving this area 

of town. There are so many old run down abandoned buildings in the area, it would be 

such a boost for the town to get these cleaned up. Being on a main route I am sure the 

impressions that people passing through town get are far from positive.

3.3 B

Jason Cirino I've been a Hartford commuter for a number of years and feel the inadequate public 

transportation availability and convenience has reached a boiling point. Simply, there are 

just too many cars on our roads and highways. This project should be given high priority 

within the state and must be completed offering new, frequent channels to our great 

capitol city. This will not only benefit weekday traffic pressures, but also enable 

convenient weekend visits to Hartford's entertainment, museums, and restaurants! Get 

this done! Thank you

1.1 A

Mr. and 

Mrs. 

Richard

Clark Mr. Alexander, We are a family from Windsor Locks who are very interested in the 

railroad station. We think it would add to the Main Street, and help people who need to 

use the trains to get to work and hospitals and other needs in Hartford and Springfield. 

We are retired and hope it can be returned to its original use. 

Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Clark

3.3 B

Robert Cleary Your web site makes many claims about growth in ridership, reduction in car trips, etc. 

Where can I find a copy of the economic impact analysis?

4.5 A

Chris Cryder To: ConnDOT; From: Connecticut Fund for the Environment (CFE)

Re: Environmental Assessment/Environmental Evaluation for the New Haven to Hartford 

to Springfield (NHHS) High Speed Intercity Rail Program; Date: 6/22/12 

We are writing to express our strong support of the NHHS High Speed Intercity Rail Line. 

CFE believes that there are many benefits that improving and expanding our transit 

infrastructure will bring to the state; these benefits will help our economy, environment, 

and most of all, our residents. There are many economic benefits associated with the 

NHHS Intercity Rail Line. Construction of the rail line will create new direct jobs in the 

construction industry and for engineers and planners as well as indirect jobs for those 

who produce the metal and other materials needed for the project. Service on the rail line 

will enable employees to get to their jobs without dependence on a car and will offer 

employers a larger labor pool from which to choose. Additionally, with a growing transit 

network, Connecticut has an unparalleled opportunity to develop our communities. 

Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a proven economic growth strategy that combines 

mixed-income housing, employment, amenities, and recreational opportunities within 

close proximity to our transit stations. By doing so, Connecticut could create a housing 

and commercial supply that meets the demands of the 21st century, while generating an 

influx of new business that would produce new revenue to the state and local 

municipalities. We appreciate the involvement of Tom Maziarz and Cmmsr. Redeker on 

the Growing Connecticut Around Transit (GCAT) workgroup, and look forward to their 

support of developing interagency technical resource teams to help communities 

overcome the complexities of infill development, brownfield remediation, mixed-use, and 

mixed-income communities. There are also many environmental benefits that will be 

associated with the NHHS rail line. Affordable, efficient and reliable rail service offers an 

appealing alternative to driving in a car, thus alleviating congestion on our roads and 

decreasing the demand for gasoline. Less congestion also means a reduction in harmful 

1.1 A
B-86

First 

Name

Last 

Name Submission Content

Response 

to 

Comments

pollutants emitted into the air and a reduction in greenhouse gases. Development around 

the stations to make the areas more walkable and livable will encourage residents to be 

more active, to walk places instead of drive and subsequently help foster a healthier, less 

sedentary lifestyle. Additionally, by including green infrastructure, low-impact 

development practices, energy efficient buildings, and distributed and renewable power 

generation in transit-oriented development areas, TOD has the potential to repair the 

local ecology and environment. CFE is a long-time supporter of the new CTfastrak. We 

learned from the CTfastrak experience that transit must be accessible to residents living 

in adjacent communities. A transit system needs an organized and overall plan for 

marketing and branding that includes outreach to residents along the line and to current 

and future rail users. In addition, state and local economic development and planning 

strategies should be integrated in order to produce strong and lasting development 

activities.

Chris Cryder We also stress that the environmental impact of the construction and operations of the rail 

line be as minimal as possible. We urge ConnDOT to review critical areas such as 

stormwater runoff and to implement low-impact development (LID) standards and other 

green infrastructure techniques to help offset the environmental impact of the new highspeed rail. ConnDOT’s ongoing involvement in workshops with DEEP and LID experts to 

explore improvements to CTfastrak plans has been heralded as a promising new model 

of collaboration, one in which we look forward to continuing on the NH-H-S project as the 

design process moves forward. We look forward to working with ConnDOT as this 

exciting project moves forward. Thank you for your consideration. Karen Burnaska 

Chris Cryder; Transit for Connecticut; Growing Connecticut Around Transit; CFE.

4.1 A

Neal CunninghamI strongly support moving the Windsor Locks train station to the north end of Main Street. 

It is far more accessible and will be of far greater value in developing that area. Already 

there is renewed interest in business property there. It is ideal for transit oriented 

development.

3.3 B

John DeFrancescoRail line is absolutely vital to economic, cultural, recreational, educational development 

and expansion.

2.0 A

R. DeGray Move up New Haven State Street Station improvements (including direct pedestrian 

access to Strauss-Adler, Smoothie building in Wooster Square) to phase 2 of project. 

1.3 B

R. DeGray As an addendum to my previous submission incorporation RailTec, please include: 

Currently, a mix of single and double track exists between New Haven and Berlin. 

Upgrade the current mix to double track. The same applies to the track system from 

Hartford to Springfield. 

1.3 C

R. DeGray [1] traffic congestion in Connecticut is greatest on I-95 in New Haven and Fairfield 

Counties. That's where most traffic mitigation is needed; I-84 has two-thirds of the 

Average Daily Traffic of I-95. A one seat ride from Hartford County to 

Stamford/Greenwich/GCT will alleviate crowding across the whole state. 

2.0 A

R. DeGray At Berlin Junction, split the double track corridor into two parallel rail corridors from Berlin 

to Hartford. For descriptive purposes, let's name the western corridor - the New HavenNew Britain-Hartford-Springfield Line and the eastern corridor - the New HavenSpringfield Amtrak Line. The New Haven-New Britain-Hartford-Springfield Line would 

have a single track plus a multi-use bike trail between downtown New Britain and 

Hartford; the New Haven-Springfield Amtrak Line would be double tracked. Move local 

station stops (with the exception of Newington Junction) between Meriden and Hartford to 

the New Haven-New Britain-Hartford-Springfield corridor. Those stops include Berlin and 

Elmwood. The Newington Junction station would be replaced by two stations, CCSUNewington and Downtown New Britain. Newington Junction is poorly located because it 

was specifically situated as a transfer stop for the CTfastrack and should be eliminated. 

2.0 B

R. DeGray Upgrade existing freight railroad track in Windsor & Suffield that go to Bradley Airport, so 

that airline passengers may have a one-seat ride to Bradley Airport. 

2.0 B
B-87

First 

Name

Last 

Name Submission Content

Response 

to 

Comments

R. DeGray CTfastrack should be eliminated in the Amtrak corridor and on Newington Secondary 

(Newington Junction to downtown New Britain. Sacrificing CTfastrack and replacing it 

with rail service through New Britain allows for more frequent service between New 

Haven-Hartford-Springfield. New overpass and bridgework that enhances grade 

separation of railroad tracks from streets and roads should be retained in the Amtrak 

corridor. 

3.3 D

R. DeGray Add environmentally-preferred alternative in EA/EIE to current build, no build alternatives. 4.4. 3 A

R. DeGray Establish an active campaign to encourage bicyclists to bike to stations, roll their bikes on 

the trains and bike to destinations. Also provide high quality, sheltered (e.g. New Haven 

Union Station) bike parking at train stations for those who have no need to bike on the 

other end of their trip. 

4.4.10 F

R. DeGray Run two parallel services south from Springfield to Hartford- New Britain - New Haven - 

New York; the other as an express service south from Springfield to Hartford-Meriden–

New Haven-New York. Same services in northbound directions. These two services 

should not terminate in New Haven, but continue to Stamford and Greenwich as express 

trains and as soon as the dual-powered equipment (locomotives that also run on 3rd rail) 

is available the trains should terminate in Grand Central Terminal (“GCT”)[1]. On the 

New Haven to GCT segment of New Haven Springfield service create a 3-stop super 

express with a 1 hour 30 minute trip time. 

4.4.10 H

R. DeGray Terminate New Haven-Springfield service in Northhampton-Amherst to allow for a oneseat ride for college & university students. 4.4.10 H

R. DeGray To stimulate ridership, all stations should have rail accessible development (RAD) - 

comprised of housing & mixed use commercial rather than parking lots. The revenue 

garnered by developing these land lots now slated for subsidized parking should be 

utilized to operate subsidized time-transfer bus shuttles to the stations. Also use 

revenues, along with FTA safe routes to transit funding, to design complete streets in safe 

routes to transit bike sheds. 

4.4.10 I

R. DeGray Bicycle touring companies and organizations are losing business because of the lack of 

an adequate rail system.

4.5 B
B-88

First 

Name

Last 

Name Submission Content

Response 

to 

Comments

Ron DeGray 3) implementing complete, livable streets within 3-mile radius ("safe routes to transit") of 

existing & planned New Haven-Springfield train stations - instead of car-first roads that 

Connecticut residents suffer with today. 4) new longer platform at New Haven State 

Street Station to accommodate Springfield-bound trains. 

 5) extending the New Haven State Street Station cross-over from State Street to the 

Strauss-Adler (Smoothie) building in Wooster Square. This would significantly improve 

the walkability and bikability index for New Haven State Street station. 

 6) Lowering & grade-separating the tracks in Wallingford & retaining the use of the 

current historic Amtrak station. 

 7) upgrading existing freight railroad track in Windsor & Suffield that go to Bradley 

Airport, so that airline passengers may have a one-seat ride to Bradley Airport. 

 8) inclusion of railroad tracks & station stops through downtown New Britain & Central 

Connecticut State University (the 3rd largest university in Connecticut) & a 9.4-mile bike 

(multi-use) trail from New Britain to Hartford. The bike trail, track & train stations would 

have an approximate price tag of $75 million. This would obviate the need for the $550 

million "CT Fastrack" highway, a misnomer because it is neither fast, nor has tracks. 

 9) termination of New Haven-Springfield service in Northampton-Amherst, which 

would allow for a one-seat ride for college & university students in New Haven and the 5 

Colleges in the Pioneer Valley. New Haven-Springfield is known as the Knowledge 

Based Corridor - let this train service actually connect the universities and colleges. 

 10) that all New Haven-Springfield trains terminate in Manhattan & operate as 3-stop 

super-express trains between New York & New Haven with stops in Greenwich, Stamford 

& Norwalk. Please consider EA/EIE include these elements in a third environmentallypreferred alternative that is in addition to the build, or no build scenarios currently 

outlined. 

 Our transportation system needs to be multi-modal where rail, bicycling and 

pedestrians receives the highest priority. Comparing Connecticut with other progressive 

states and countries, it is shocking to see how far behind we have become. These points 

have an direct and indirect effects on transportation between neighboring states, the U.S. 

in general, Canada and Mexico. Please promote the above points by RailTEC. 

 Sincerely, Ron DeGray, 120 Cricket Lane, Glastonbury, CT 06033-1851

2.0 B

Ron DeGray Dear Mr. Alexander, I absolutely support the points of Richard Stowe of RailTEC in 

regard to NHHS:

 1) unboxed, roll-on bicycle access onto all trains running on the New HavenSpringfield corridor.

 2) covered upside down U bicycle parking slots (think New Haven Union Station) 

adjacent to all NHHS stations including the New Haven State Street Station - instead of 

the car-first parking lots planners & the public have focused on to date.

4.4.10 F
B-89

First 

Name

Last 

Name Submission Content

Response 

to 

Comments

Ronald W DeGray g) implementing complete, livable streets within 3-mile radius ("safe routes to transit") of 

existing & planned NHHS train stations - instead of car-first roads that Connecticut 

residents suffer with today. 

h) new longer platform at New Haven State Street Station to accommodate Springfieldbound trains. 

i) extending the New Haven State Street Station cross-over from State St. to the StraussAdler (Smoothie) building in Wooster Square. This would significantly improve the 

walkability and bikability index for New Haven State St. station. 

j) Lowering & grade-separating the railroad tracks in Wallingford & retaining the use of 

the current historic Amtrak station. 

k) upgrading existing freight railroad track in Windsor & Suffield that go to Bradley 

Airport, so that airline passengers may have a one-seat ride to Bradley Airport. 

l) inclusion of railroad tracks & station stops through downtown New Britain & Central 

Connecticut State University (the 3rd largest university in Connecticut) & a 9.4-mile bike 

(multi-use) trail from New Britain to Hartford. The bike trail, track & train stations would 

have an approximate price tag of $75 million. This would obviate the need for the $550 

million "CT Fastrack" highway, a misnomer because it is neither fast, nor has tracks. 

m) termination of New Haven-Springfield service in Northampton-Amherst, which would 

allow for a one-seat ride for college & university students in New Haven and the 5 

Colleges in the Pioneer Valley. New Haven-Springfield is known as the Knowledge 

Based Corridor - let this train service actually connect the universities and colleges. 

ς) that all New Haven-Springfield trains terminate in Manhattan & operate as 3-stop 

super-express trains between New York & New Haven with stops in Greenwich, Stamford 

& Norwalk. 

 Also consider that EA/EIE include these elements in a third environmentally-preferred 

alternative that is in addition to the build, or no build scenarios currently outlined.

2.0 B

Ronald W DeGray Please support the points of RailTEC: e) unboxed, roll-on bicycle access onto all trains 

running on the New Haven-Springfield corridor. f) covered upside down U bicycle 

parking slots (think New Haven Union Station) adjacent to all NHHS stations including the 

New Haven State Street Station - instead of the car-first parking lots planners & the public 

have focused on to date. 

4.4.10 F

Thomas Deller The City of Hartford reviewed the EA/EIE documents for the New Haven-HartfordSpringfield Line High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail. We are pleased to see this project 

moving forward and are strongly supportive of high speed rail though the City of Hartford.

1.1 A

Thomas Deller The New Britain-Hartford Busway aka CT Fasttrack, Amtrak High Speed Rail Project and 

the anticipated I-84 Highway Viaduct replacement project essentially use the same rightof-way. The consideration, coordination and discussion of these projects are essential to 

the economic vitality of the region. We ask that better coordination among the related 

projects and other City initiatives be considered and included in the report and planning 

efforts going forward. 

1.3 D 

Thomas Deller Finally the CT DOT has just committed to a study of the feasibility of relocating both the 

rail and highway viaducts. The EA/EIE document commits to a 20 year life of the existing 

conditions. We strongly believe that the moment to carry out this vision is within build out 

of the rail project and not 20 years down the road. We look forward to working together 

on these interconnected projects. 

1.3 D

Thomas Deller Aggregate usage estimates at Union Station are not included in the assessment of 

impacts. We believe the modal split calculation between bus and rail be included in the 

document. TOD and parking demand calculations scenarios and related impacts should 

also be included in the report. The report refers to DOT ridership analysis for the rail line. 

The City of Hartford has not received this analysis, and the regional transportation entity, 

the CRCOG is also unaware of this analysis. It would be helpful going forward if such 

analysis would be made available to the city and the region. The financing necessary to 

create the required parking at Union Station should be the responsibility of the State of 

Connecticut Department of Transportation and not the City of Hartford. Viable alternates 

other than creating more surface parking under the existing viaduct exist. 

4.4.10 I

Linda Desarro Adding the New Haven to Springfield line just makes sense. 1.1 A
B-90

First 

Name

Last 

Name Submission Content

Response 

to 

Comments

Nancy Descrisantis3) New Longer platform at New Haven State Street Station to accommodate Springfieldbound trains. 4) Extending the New Haven State Street Station cross-over from State 

Street to the Strauss-Adler building in Wooster Square. This would significantly improve 

the walkability and bikability index for New Haven State Street Station. Thank you for 

your consideration, Nancy Decrisantis, New Hartford, CT

2.0 B

Nancy DescrisantisDear Mr. Alexander, The following are the most important issues for consideration, as rail 

advocates urgently need accommodations in order to use trains with bicycles. I consider 

these the most urgent, with immediate action needed. Please include them on your 

agenda. 1) Unboxed, roll-on bicycle access onto all trains running on the New HavenSpringfield corridor. 2) Covered upside down U bicycle parking slots adjacent to all 

NHHS stations including the New Haven State Street Station - instead of car-first parking 

lost focused on to date. The time has come for bicycles to be taken seriously as 

transportation in combination with public transportation, especially rail service. 

Additionally, there are many commercial bicycle touring companies and joining these 

commercial tours is near impossible unless one can take a bicycle via public 

transportation. This is always a huge problem. Not allowing bicycles on trains hinders 

one's access to many of these tours.

4.4.10 F

Chris Ferrero Moving the Windsor Locks station from its current location to the downtown area is a very 

positive initiative that will help revitalize the downtown area. I strongly support this 

relocation and look forward to a revitalized downtown area.

3.3 B

Emily Freed High speed rail/mass transit is a great way to reduce carbon emissions. Please support 

this project.

4.4.11 A

Maria Giannuzzi I have proposed on a local news website bridging the canal next to the train station 

platform and closing off River Bank Road next to the old Montgomery mill to motor vehicle 

traffic wishing to access the south entrance of the canal trail. (Pedestrians and bicycles 

would still be allowed as well as emergency vehicles.) Redirecting visitors with cars to 

this new access point for the canal trail may obviate the need to place a barrier on Bridge 

Street that may impact trucks entering Ahlstrom’s entrance. My proposal calls for a 

federal, state and local (Windsor Locks) partnership to pay for the expense of 

constructing the canal bridge.

1.3 A

Maria Giannuzzi In support of the proposed train station platform location north of the Windsor Locks' 

central business district, as part of a proposed renovation and expansion of the Windsor 

Locks Commons development, Environmental Assessment Impact Evaluation for the 

New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Line High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Project 

 Dear Director Alexander: I wholeheartedly support the location of the planned train 

station platform north of the Windsor Locks' central business district, as part of a 

proposed renovation and expansion of the Windsor Locks Commons development. I am 

convinced that a downtown location will be the route to renewal not only for the 

community of Windsor Locks but for all of Connecticut. 

 I’m sure you are already aware of the economic importance of a downtown train 

station not only to Windsor Locks, but all the towns of north central Connecticut. A 

downtown train station platform can literally be the jumping off point for a vibrant 

economic and cultural scene. 

 DOT has the expertise and Windsor Locks a committed leadership to overcome any 

potential problems. I am confident that current thru-traffic along Main Street in Windsor 

Locks will quickly adapt if the train station platform is located downtown. As you know, 

there are three alternate routes including I-91, Route 5 and Route 75 that motor vehicles 

can use that will help prevent or limit any potential traffic congestion.

3.3 B
B-91

First 

Name

Last 

Name Submission Content

Response 

to 

Comments

Maria Giannuzzi Downtown Windsor Locks is fortunate to have the Connecticut River next door. The 

Connecticut is perhaps the most beautiful river in the Eastern United States. I have 

traveled many times by train from Boston and Washington, D.C. to Windsor Locks and 

have often been struck by the look of delight and wonder I see on the faces of fellow 

passengers, especially children, as the train slowly crosses the Connecticut River near 

King’s Island and then rumbles alongside Main Street in Windsor Locks and its historic 

canal. Passengers traveling by rail in the Northeast are rarely treated to such a lovely 

sight. A downtown train station is a “natural” stopping place for visitors and commuters 

who wish to acquaint themselves with the history, wildlife, recreational areas and 

breathtaking river vistas of north central Connecticut. 

 Director Alexander, there is no doubt in my mind that relocating the train station 

platform to our downtown area will reinvigorate the town of Windsor Locks and 

surrounding communities—and when communities prosper, Connecticut prospers. 

Sincerely, Maria Giannuzzi, 21 Spring Street, Apt. C-3, Windsor Locks, CT 06096

3.3 B

Douglas 

C.

Glazier Subject: Windsor Locks Train Stop Mark, I would like to expand on the WL train-stop 

relocation a bit more, as there is so much history behind the change in WL Main St. area, 

economically and culturally. This I can discuss with firsthand experience as I was on the 

WL Redevelopment Agency during the 70's, 80's & 90's and saw much of the 

reconstruction of the WL downtown area. I've also been a member of the WL Board of 

Finance for the last 12 years and my term ends in 2015. Thus, I am well aware of where 

the town's revenues come from and I'm always hoping new business developments, as I 

know this will increase the town's revenue. 

I moved to WL in 1958 as I took a job with Hamilton Standard when I was separated from 

active duty in the US Army. I remember WL during those years (58-60's) and saw the 

entire downtown area demolished as part of town's revitalization/ redevelopment, funded 

by the federal government. Before the demolition, the downtown area was a one stop 

shopping center with a gas station, drug stores, hardware stores, banks, a theater, and a 

bar & grille with pool tables. Demolition took place during the late 60's & 70's and all the 

businesses that were displaced never returned, except for a drugstore for a few years 

that folded. Reconstruction of Main St. started in the 70's with two small shopping 

complexes running along most of the downtown area. Also during the 70's and on, the 

surrounding towns constructed these mega shopping complexes that had most of the WL 

residents going to these shopping areas as they were made for one-stop shopping. At the 

same time, this town became acclimated to having one or more cars as this became 

necessary for shoppers going to the mega shopping centers. The amount, size and 

variety of shops, being established in WL, was quite skimpy. Thus, the old days of Main 

St. being a one-stop shopping center, was gone, and will not come back to what existed 

many years ago. Then in the 80's, the WL Commons was constructed (that's the 

shopping center just north of the Old Train Station at the bend), and the builder went 

bankrupt as it was years before he got enough tenants to help pay the mortgage. And 

that has been a problem with these three shopping centers along WL Main St., in that 

there are always shop vacancies. They never get filled up as business developers do not 

see a good potential for a thriving business in the WL downtown area. I also do not see 

any new development taking place, in the downtown area, as there is no open land for 

development. There is the large Montgomery building, on the narrow strip of land 

between the WL Canal and the CT River, that was considered, on three different 

occasions, for converting the building to apartments, but was turned down each time, as 

not being feasible or practical. I doubt if any developer would buy that building to 

demolish it and construct businesses. Regards, Douglas C. Glazier, 167 Taft Lane, 

Windsor Locks, CT 06096

3.3 B
B-92

First 

Name

Last 

Name Submission Content

Response 

to 

Comments

Douglas 

C.

Glazier Mark, There is not much time left to the June 22, 2012 deadline for input on the proposed 

upgrades to the RR system. Would you be willing to have me stop at your office to 

discuss why I believe the relocation, of the train-stop, would not trigger any economic 

development in the WL Main St area. I know Steve Wawruck and Patrick McMahon have 

visited your office (not sure of all the DOT personnel he met with) to make the case for 

relocation of the train-stop. I don't think anyone has met with DOT personnel to discuss 

another viewpoint on why the train-stop should remain at the south end of town, and I 

think it's important for DOT to see another perspective. My background in WL is more 

than sufficient to provide good insight on another viewpoint. I have been a member of the 

WL Redevelopment Agency that was responsible for the reconstruction of the WL 

downtown area. 

I've also have been a member of the WL Board of Finance for the last 12 years and no 

one, in town, knows better than I, the importance of economic development, as that is 

where the bulk of town revenue is generated. Steve Wawruck keeps stating that the trainstop relocation to the north area, would trigger big economic development along the 

downtown area. I strongly disagree with this concept as there is NO open space, for any 

economic development, along the downtown Main St. area. There is the Montgomery 

Building sitting on that narrow strip of land between the Canal and the CT River, that was 

turned down on 3 separate occasions for converting the building into apartments, as not 

being feasible or practical, which then says what would be done with that building. There 

is no good answer and no one is sure what will be done in that area that is so narrow, 

making vehicle entrance and egress very inconvenient. Economic developers would not 

see that area as conducive for development. It would be investing much money in an 

inconvenient location. 

I see no good reason to relocate the train-stop as it would NOT trigger major economic 

development as professed by First Selectman Wawruck and would cause major traffic 

congestion, causing much inconvenience to motorists, resulting in daily frustrations for 

motorists crossing the Bridge St. bridge, which has the RR Gates. I very much hope you 

would agree for me to meet at your office, this week for about an hour, to discuss the 

importance of not relocation the train-stop. Please feel free to call me anytime on 860-

623-2272 or my cell phone on 860-478-0771. 

Thank you. Douglas C. Glazier, 167 Taft Lane, Windsor Locks, CT 06096.

3.3 B

Douglas 

C.

Glazier CRITIQUE OF CHANGING THE RR TRAIN-STOP TO THE NORTH END IN WINDSOR LOCKS

In Windsor Locks (WL), if the train-stop is relocated from its present location at the south 

end of Main St., to an area in proximity to the Old Train Station at the north area of Main 

St., serious traffic congestions will occur along Main St and Bridge St., making this 

relocation undesirable. This congestion problem occurs as the train-stop relocation 

requires the RR Gates, at Bridge St. & Main St., to drop when a train, coming from 

Springfield, stops at WL. As the train approaches the proposed WL station, the Bridge St. 

Gates will drop and stay down until the train has stopped, unloaded passengers, loaded 

new passengers, then proceeds to start and travel past the Bridge St. Gates, whereby the 

Gates will go up and vehicle traffic can proceed. CT DOT thinks this Gate down time to 

be about 2.5 minutes (very optimistic) and I think it will be more like 3-4 minutes, 

depending how many passengers unload & load. When this occurs, vehicles will be 

backed up on Main St. going south past Elm St. Also, vehicles will be backed up on 

Bridge St. all the way past Warehouse Point’s Main St., and probably further. When the 

Bridge St Gates go up, imagine how long it will take these long traffic lines to clear trough 

the Main St/Bridge St. intersection, considering some vehicles will have to wait for several 

traffic light changes before getting through that intersection. I expect this may take up to 7 

or 8 minutes for all traffic to clear through that intersection. 

I experienced an interesting observation at this intersection a few months ago, as I was 

on Bridge St. when the Gates dropped (I was a few cars from the Gates). Then a freight 

train came through, so I timed the freight train and it was 1.5 minutes for the freight train 

to clear and the Gates opened. I looked back and saw vehicles backed up to Warehouse 

Point Main St. I had the green light so I proceeded across the tracks and turned left onto 

Main St., WL, and I saw vehicles backed up all along Main St., and past Elm St. by 3 or 4 

vehicles. That was for a Gate down time of 1.5 minutes. Can you imagine how much 

further back vehicles will be stopped, with a 3 minutes Gate down time. These long traffic 

lines would be most objectionable by all of us. 

As already stated, with the proposed train-stop relocation to the north area, and an 

estimated time of 7-8 minutes for all backed up vehicles to clear the Main St- Bridge St. 

intersection, after a train goes through, can you imagine this occurring every 30-40 

minutes a day, with 20 trains going through this intersection every day, when DOT has 

4.4.10 G
B-93

First 

Name

Last 

Name Submission Content

Response 

to 

Comments

completed the dual tracks and has all 26 trains per day become operational. We all know 

this horrendous traffic congestion will be objectionable to the WL community as motorists 

will avoid crossing the CT River at Bridge St. It would also cause the people of East 

Windsor to avoid going into WL at Bridge St., and may have a negative impact on the 

businesses on WL Main St. 

Most importantly, this significant traffic congestion would be discouraging to any 

prospective developers lookin+M67g to invest in construction of commercial and business 

enterprises along Main St., WL. Eventually, the people of WL & E. Windsor would be 

requesting the train-stop to be relocated back to the south area of town. Keeping Gate 

down times to an absolute minimum can only be done with keeping the train stop in its 

present location, at the south end of town. Thank you.

Jean Glazier To: Alexander, Mark W

Subject: Relocation of train platform in Windsor Locks, CT.

I want to comment on the above subject. I am very much opposed to relocating the 

platform. It has been at it's current location for well over 20 years and the location is fine. 

There is plenty of parking, it's right near I-91N or I-91S and Rte 159. To spend the 

necessary dollars to just move it to Main Street is ridiculous when funds are needed to do 

necessary things in other towns. It will be worthwhile to have a train platform in Enfield, 

CT. There is no room on Main St. near the old railroad station for parking, etc. 

I cannot fathom how it will benefit anyone to move the train platform. It definitely will 

cause traffic problems when the gates have to stay down longer to discharge and load 

passengers. I see NO BENEFIT AT ALL to the proposal to relocate the train platform. I 

cannot see why a developer would consider this an asset if he could find any space on 

Main St. to develop. If the thinking is that this move would benefit the development of the 

old Montgomery Building, I don't agree. This building should just be torn down - to get 

emergency vehicles (fire, ambulance, police, etc.) to the site is nigh impossible and if the 

train platform were moved, it would make it that much worse. I hope that when all the 

facts are considered, i.e. cost, need for improvements in other towns, etc.; that the train 

platform will stay where it is presently. There is not need for any change.

Thank you for taking the time to read my comments. My name is Lois Jean Glazier and I 

have resided in Windsor Locks since the last part of 1958. Currently I reside at 167 Taft 

Lane and my phone number is 860-623-2272 if you wish to discuss this. I have been 

very active in Windsor Locks. I was the Executive Director of the Windsor Locks Housing 

Authority for over 20 years, retiring in 1999. I have been the Clerk for the Board of 

Finance on and off for 18 years or so. I have been a member of the Board of Finance 

and a Selectman in Windsor Locks for a two year term. I am very active in the Windsor 

Locks Congregational Church on Main Street. I feel I am very qualified to offer my 

opinion on this matter and I thank you for your time.

3.3 B

Peter Gongola j. There are a few places in Enfield, Connecticut where homes are very close to the 

tracks especially along North and South River Streets to name a few so; are there any 

plans to put into place sound barrier fences along these areas of concern to reduce the 

anticipated increase in noise? 

4.2.2 A

Peter Gongola f. Why will the track speed rating be restricted to a 110 MPH limit when many European 

nations have trains traveling at much higher speeds on rails with ratings well above that 

on a regular basis? 

4.4.10 C

Peter Gongola g. Can the old and new track lines handle heavy and oversized freight trains and at 

what times since there eventually is going to be 25 round trips by the commuter trains 

traveling on them? 

4.4.10 D

Peter Gongola l. Will commuter parking at the rail stations be free or are fees going to be imposed on 

the traveling public and if there is a fee how will it be regulated and where will the moneys 

collected go towards? 

4.4.10 E

Peter Gongola 1. Will there be security scanning implementation at all rail stops to keep passengers 

safe on the trains as well as to reduce, prevent or deter any free and easy infiltration of 

weapons, drugs and criminal elements from ending up into the streets of any town or city 

along the commuter rail route? 

4.4.13 B

Peter Gongola k. Who will own, manage and secure the rail stations as well as the parking around 

them? 

4.4.13 B
B-94

First 

Name

Last 

Name Submission Content

Response 

to 

Comments

Peter Gongola m. As traffic usage increases on all these tracks then please provide some details as 

to how maintenance will be improved from past practices which will prevent bridges, 

culverts, rail beds, etc., to decay into a state of disrepair and keep the lines fully 

operational? Thank You. 

4.4.13 B

Peter Gongola h. Since the New Haven to Springfield Commuter Rail line will start with old broken 

down and so called refurbished outdated Diesel engines borrowed from the shoreline 

system then when will new modern electric locomotives be put into service here on this 

route? 

4.4.15 A

Peter Gongola i. Please explain how commuter rail service will be managed to pay for itself and stay 

solvent and sustainable at any duration? 

4.5 A

Aaron Goode I am concerned about additional trains in this corridor running on diesel fuel. New Haven 

is considered an environmental justice community by the state of Connecticut because of 

its combination of heavy pollution and socio-economic deprivation. Residents are 

subjected to pollution from two interstate highways, a sludge incinerator, a major regional 

port with diesel traffic, multiple cement batching facilities, transfer stations, and chemical 

manufacturers. 20% of New Haven children have asthma, the highest rate in the state. 

We cannot bear the burden of any increased toxic air emissions. Aaron Goode, New 

Haven Environmental Justice Network

4.2.1 A

Ariana Habib I think this project is a good thing, especially for commuters who do not have access to a 

car or cannot drive due to disability related reasons. I would like to see if any of the stops 

will connect to Universities (CCSU, Naugatuck Valley, University of Hartford, UCONN 

Hartford Campus, etc.) and major workplaces in those areas that attract a lot of jobs. That 

may have even more appeal for people like me who have even more difficulty finding a 

job because of a disability.

4.4.10 A

George Haikalis Dear Mr. Alexander: Please include the attached letter to Governor Malloy in the record 

on the Environmental Assessment/ Environmental Impact Evaluation of the New HavenHartford-Springfield Rail project. 

Sincerely, George Haikalis, President, INSTITUTE FOR RATIONAL URBAN MOBILITY, 

INC. June 13, 2012, 

Governor Dannel P. Malloy, State Capitol, 210 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, CT 06106

Dear Governor Malloy: Re: Commuter Rail Yes, Busway No

Your leadership in securing resources to restore the double-track rail line between 

Springfield and New Haven for new regional rail service as well as for enhanced Amtrak 

intercity passenger service is most welcome. The Interstate 91 corridor is seriously 

congested and continued over-reliance on motor vehicles for travel will only lead to 

further deterioration of the environment and curtailed economic development.

However, your strong support of the Hartford-New Britain busway is inconsistent with this 

regional rail plan. The $567 million busway duplicates the rail investment for half of its 

ten mile route. A much better plan would be to restore, rather than pave over, the 

remaining five mile segment of disused railroad from Newington to New Britain. Regional 

rail service could then use the upgraded rail line from Hartford to Newington with its two 

intermediate stations and continue on a restored rail line to downtown New Britain. An 

intermediate station near the Central Connecticut State University campus would provide 

an appealing new travel options for students and faculty. A subsequent phase would be 

to upgrade the existing rail line from New Britain to Bristol and eventually to Waterbury. 

A Hartford-New Britain rail service will provide an important new economic stimulus for 

development in the historic core of New Britain. Bus service is already available, but has 

shown little appeal to motorists. While busways may be important in some corridors 

where rail service is not feasible, this is not the case in this instance. Extension of the 

planned upgraded rail service avoids the wasteful duplication of resources and provides a 

really appealing travel option. Furthermore, the costly conversion of this rail corridor to a 

little-used busway will almost certainly lead to pressure to add other motor vehicles to the 

traffic stream, further encouraging highway-induced sprawl. The Institute for Rational 

Urban Mobility, Inc. (IRUM) is a NTC-based non-profit concerned with reducing motor 

vehicular travel in dense urban areas. 

Sincerely, George Haikalis, President, IRUM

3.3 D

N. Tery Hall Operation Concern; Amtrak is moving to E-ticketing this summer. The interface to Amtrak 

at New Haven must allow for this.

2.0 C
B-95

First 

Name

Last 

Name Submission Content

Response 

to 

Comments

Rosemary Hogan My husband and I live in Windsor Locks and support the relocation of the existing train 

station to the new proposed location. We feel this will be an economic stimulus for 

downtown Windsor Locks and cannot help but add a more positive image to the 

transportation link planned for the train and Bradley airport. This opportunity will not 

come up again - please move forward on this resolution. Thanks very much, 

Rosemary Hogan

3.3 B

Carol Joyal I am in total support of relocating the train station to the center of town, a more 

convenient area compared to where it is currently located. This relocation of the train 

station would offer endless possibilities for growth and one cannot argue how important 

growth is to our current economy. Looking forward to this much needed endeavor for the 

town of Windsor Locks!

3.3 B

Alan Kaiser I wish to state that I fully approve of the high speed rail program and wish to see it 

move along without delay. 

 I also would like to state that I do not approve of the location for the Meriden Train 

Station and Platforms. I believe that a better location would be north of the present 

station next to State Street Extension. There is a westbound exit and eastbound 

entrance ramp directly off of I-691. The railroad's right of way and property is large 

enough for a new station to be built with possibly three tracks, North, South and a passing 

track in the middle. On Colony street there is an west bound entrance to I-691 and 

access to the platforms and stations could be had from Colony Street. There is also 

plenty of space for parking in the area. 

 The biggest advantage of having the station there is when there is a train or trains at 

the station, no street crossings would be block by gates. The closest street that crosses 

the tracks, Camp Street is has a bridge that goes over the right of way. Thank you for 

considering my request. Alan (Al) Kaiser

4.4.10 B

Martha Klein This project obliterates a family business on the corner of Newfield and Flatbush 

Avenues, which has been in my family for decades. Your plans are built on top of the 

Standard Paper Co./The Party Shop, as though the business were not even there. This is 

typical behavior from CTDOT. Your arrogance is only overshadowed by the 

incompetence of your planning. THIS IS WAR. Are Hartford businesses an endangered 

species? We need to be protected from you.

4.4. 3 A

Pat Kuszik Dear Mr. .Alexander, It is very exciting to hear of the possible move of the train platform in 

our town to the downtown area of Windsor Locks. I have lived in Windsor Locks for 47 

years and the downtown area has gone from a very busy community to a very bleak and 

deserted one. There are many stores in this downtown area that could benefit greatly 

from this move. It would also encourage investors and entrepreneurs to see our town in a 

new light. It would also generate travelers coming and going and perhaps taking some 

time to have a cup of coffee and do a little shopping and enjoying Connecticut’s small 

home town flavor. Right now, the present platform is a generic parking lot that is a 

distance from our downtown area. I have recently discovered the convenience and VERY 

reasonable cost of train travel considering the cost of gas . Let’s encourage commuter 

travel by train instead of gridlock. I encourage you to see this move as a very positive 

one for our town of Windsor Locks. Sincerely.

3.3 B

John Lennon It amazes me how this town for 30 or so years has ignored the welfare of commuters and 

their staging areas in the south end of town and yet remains an uncanny devotion to 

group of long unused, impractical commercial and industrial eyesores in our former 

downtown area. With that mouthful said, I think my position is understood that we should 

tear down the 18th century eyesores and build up our assets in the south end.

3.3 B

Amy Mackey Please move the train platform to the center of Main Street. This move would revitalize 

our town and make our Main Street once again something to be proud of.

3.3 B

Ruth N Martinez I give you my full support. In my family we have been waiting for this project to become a 

reality. We cannot wait! Please tell us when you planning to have it completed. Also, 

what is the projected price. Thank you.

1.1 A

Brendan Maurer Briefly reviewing the EA, it confirms the need and demand for the North Haven station. 

Also the maps show no new lines need to be constructed between New Haven and North 

Haven, only renovations. Consideration should be given to funding the North Haven 

station construction to provide an immediate benefit to commuters in the overly 

congested New Haven area.

3.3 A
B-96

First 

Name

Last 

Name Submission Content

Response 

to 

Comments

Lee McKinney Can't wait to be able to take the train from Berlin. I am anxious to see quicker progress. 1.1 A

Joseph Michael No need for "high-speed" rail; the stations are too close together. A "regular speed" rail 

line that stopped at Bradley is a good idea. To have a reliable alternative to driving to the 

airport would be nice. 

Please, forget the "high speed" element. The trains have to accelerate before they can 

travel at speed, and then they have to slow down again. The distances involved are too 

short to make the incremental extra investment for "high speed" over "regular speed." 

Just getting a "regular speed" rail to Bradley would be more than enough!!

2.0 A

Amy Morales Please move the rail platform to Main Street. It would add to our Town's revitalization 

efforts.

3.3 B

Sondra Morrissey Please have several trains from Windsor Locks for convenient day trips to NYC and 

Boston. 

There's currently only one option for direct travel to Penn Station in NYC. Missing that 

one train, either way, creates a nightmare. I used to live along Metro North 

(Poughkeepsie, NY and then Milford, CT). I LOVED all the direct train options into NYC! 

It was such a relaxing, stress-free way to frequently visit NYC. PLEASE, PLEASE, 

PLEASE create train travel from Windsor Locks to Boston. Break Peter Pan's monopoly 

on commuter travel to Boston!!! It's ridiculous that there are no train options from 

Springfield to Boston!!! A train day trip to Boston is literally impossible!!! 

Windsor Locks is a convenient and safe area for me to park. Having to park in 

Springfield, or travel & park in New Haven are deterrents. I just don't feel safe in either 

location. Having to drive all the way to New Haven defeats the point of commuter travel.

4.4.10 H

Mary Mushinsky 

Represent

ative

Re: Public Meetings

 I fully support the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Line High Speed Rail project. More 

frequent rail transportation will reduce congestion on I-91 and enhance the downtown 

Wallingford commercial and residential area. I expect the new service will bring young 

professional works to the downtown area.

1.1 A

Mary Mushinsky 

Represent

ative

While the Judd Square Station site would be close to my home, and therefore personally 

desirable, my constituents have expressed some fear of traffic harming their children at 

the bus pull-in. If you select Judd Square, please use fencing to protect pedestrians of 

the Judd Square complex. The Town Council prefers North Cherry Street to avoid 

construction of a parking garage and to keep Ward Street open for emergency vehicles to 

cross the tracks when train is in the station.

3.3 E

Eileen M. ONeill I am in favor of this mode of transportation for the north/south corridor of CT as long as it 

is environmentally sound in construction and design. I would like to review the materials 

prior to the decision making deadline of June 22, 2012. Where may I access these? 

Please advise. E ONeill

4.1 A

Norm Oney I am strongly in favor of relocating the Windsor Locks train stop back to the center of town 

where it belongs. 

One of the reasons for moving the train platform is security. The location of the present 

platform does not give me a great sense of security; especially when dark. The most 

important reason I feel is to reconnect the train to the town. Our little town desperately 

needs some main street activity and I believe moving the train stop back to the town will 

be a positive step to bring about more activity on main street.

3.3 B

Adele Patterson My comment is that the proposed rail connections will be of great benefit to the people of 

Connecticut. In my family, the environmental impact would be to remove one commuter 

auto on a daily drive from W. Hartford/Hartford to New Haven--where the commuter rides 

the RR on to Stamford. We moved to the Hartford area due to the lack of practical rail 

commute for me from Fairfield/Bridgeport to Hartford area. In my opinion, a proper rail 

connection would make CT feel like the small state it is; driving our overcrowded roads 

deters economic activity.

2.0 A
B-97

First 

Name

Last 

Name Submission Content

Response 

to 

Comments

Morris Pedersen Safety is a major concern I have. Unless tracks are elevated where you can drive under 

them, I don't see how a high speed rail system can work here with numerous crossings 

that need upgrades and that becomes costly in more ways than one. Elevating tracks 

may sound extreme, like a monorail system, but it requires less real-estate, travelling 

above the old rails. This means the crossing upgrades are avoided. There's also less rail 

maintenance. This will eliminate accidents and reduce down time, making it work more 

efficient. If it can work for rollercoasters, it can work for a rail system, so it may not be as 

crazy as my idea seems. It elevates the train, so it brings it out of harms way eliminating 

accidents. I feel this is the long term solution to travel that should be considered.

4.4.13 B

Morris Pedersen The current rail system is outdated when compared to European Rail Systems. The 

number one issue is; it's not affordable for most people at the current time. With proposed 

improvements, costs are expected to rise, so how many will ride the rails when there's 

cheaper alternatives for travel? Although, it's a time saver to ride the high speed rails, 

what can be done to make riding the rail more affordable for more riders? If not many ride 

the rails now, due to the cost factor, how many will ride when it becomes more 

expensive? 

4.5 A

Vic Puia As a past First Selectman, there is no doubt in my mind that moving of the train station 

stop back to the center of our Main Street will become the catalyst for the development 

and revitalization of our entire Main Street area. Our development of the old Montgomery 

Mill into retail and commercial space could result in our becoming a shopping destination, 

and increase ridership on the trains in this area. It would be a win /win for the town, the 

state, and Amtrak. Let's get this done!

3.3 B

David Ragion I strongly support this project, along with the idea of moving the train station in Windsor 

Locks back to its downtown area from its current location south of town. The current 

location is isolated and separated from the town itself. Movement of the station would 

encourage more people to use the rail lines. Its current location is uninviting and 

desperate. Bringing the station back downtown where it once resided will encourage 

more use and incorporate the rail line with the town again.

3.3 B

john Richardson Very excited to see project making progress! Can't wait to have alternate transportation 

option to and from work in Windsor Locks.

3.3 B

James Roache, 

Jr.

As noted on the web site I'm writing to state my support to relocate the Windsor Locks 

AMTRAK train platform from its present location, down by I-91, to the north end of Main 

Street, Windsor Locks. I firmly believe in mass transit, and the relocation of the platform, 

and the resulting economic activity in that part of town, will only enhance the efforts to 

promote rail travel, and support an additional method of access to Bradley International.

3.3 B

James Roche Jr. I attended the hearing at Asnuntuck last week and listened to Mr. Glazier's comments. 

Years ago, when train traffic was in its heyday, the bridge intersection could experience 

delays, but no one objected. Now, there is an alternate route over the river on the Coffin 

Bridge. I use this often when I know the freight train may be coming through. Residents 

on both sides of the river will do this as they come to know the train schedules. I feel the 

comments about traffic problems are blown out of proportion, not to mention with the 

station platform on the south end there hasn't been any development of Main Street 

anyway. I fully support the relocation of the train platform to the north end of Windsor 

Locks and the restoration of the Historic Train Station.

Thank you. James F. Roche Jr.

3.3 B
B-98

First 

Name

Last 

Name Submission Content

Response 

to 

Comments

James F. Roche, Jr. Dear Mr. Alexander, I’m writing to express my support for the relocation of the Windsor 

Locks Train Platform from its present location, south of Windsor Locks center, to the 

location designated just north of the Historical Train Station. I firmly believe in mass 

transit. Furthermore I firmly believe that the relocation of the train platform and the 

renovation of the Historic Train Station will be the catalyst for economic development in 

the town of Windsor Locks. The high speed rail system is only the beginning for a mass 

transit system that is long overdue. I envision even more mass transit projects in the 

destination towns and cities that will allow people to work, shop, and visit various 

businesses throughout the state. I envision rail travel to Windsor Locks, where a shuttle 

will take passengers to Bradley International. Imagine being able to travel from Stamford 

to Windsor Locks and catch a plane to anywhere in the country, or overseas, and be able 

to leave your car at home. He town of Windsor Locks has long awaited the opportunity to 

begin rebuilding our Main Street area, and to compliment the efforts being made to 

enhance air travel. We are looking forward to a favorable decision regarding the platform 

relocation, and to begin the process of developing Main Street, making it the vibrant place 

it once was. Sincerely, James F. Roche Jr.

3.3 B

Robin Roncari Subject: Train Station in Windsor Locks 

Dear Mr. Alexander, Please consider very carefully the need to move the train platform 

from its present location, on the outskirts of town, to Main Street. The present location is 

isolated, dark, out of the way, and not conducive for people traveling with bags with no 

one to pick them up or drop them off. If the station were closer to the main hub, where 

stores, phones, banks are more accessible it would be much more "people/traveler 

friendly." The old train station has been an eyesore for too many years now. We need to 

fix it up, make it a viable option for economic growth and development for Windsor Locks. 

Having the line stop in the main part of town would, in my opinion, make people more apt 

to use the train as it would be visible, they would see the convenience and view public 

transportation as part of daily life rather than some out of the way thing that doesn't 

concern them. Moving the platform, for that is all that it is, a platform to stand on while 

one waits for his/her train, to a real station in the business area sends a message from 

Amtrak and the town; "we are here to serve your needs, show you how this can work for 

you." Let's bring out of hiding this platform and transform the rail line into a living, 

breathing option for travelers from not just Windsor Locks but surrounding towns, not on 

the line. Thank you for your time and effort in this very important matter.

3.3 B

Christian Schaub I am a strong supporter of this project and think that improved rail service (commuter and 

medium-distance) will be a great benefit to our communities - improving economic 

development, the environment, and quality of life. This is a great investment!

1.1 A

John Seiffer I'm in favor of the high speed rail. While there might be some environmental impact that is 

negative, there is also the positive impact of more people using mass transit and fewer 

cars being used. I hope your report addresses this.

4.4.11 A

Daniel Silver Your decision to specifically include my site in your report will have a deleterious effect on 

my business and my property-and this without your having any reasonable idea how 

soon-or if-funding will be approved. I urge you to replace my site in your report with a 

general statement indicating your objective to build a rail station close to one of the two 

busway stations. The stigma that would be left if you don't adjust your report might last 

for years, impacting on my ability to sell, lease or develop this site.

4.4. 3 A

Aimee Sixt Hi. My name is Aimee Sixt. I live on Spier Ave in Enfield CT. I have a few questions and 

comments. My house is one home away from the current rail line. My neighbors and I are 

concerned about the noise impact to our neighborhood and whether we will be part of the 

quiet zone. 

4.2.2 A 

Aimee Sixt There are currently some trees and brush between our homes and the track blocking 

view of passing trains that we would prefer not be cut down. Will we be notified if the 

landscaping along the tracks and our homes will be altered? 

4.4. 6 A

Aimee Sixt There is a fence along the end of Spier Ave, it is an old chain link that only runs the length 

of the road. There is no fence next to some of the property along the tracks, will you be 

upgrading the old fencing? Thank you for your time.

4.4.13 A
B-99

First 

Name

Last 

Name Submission Content

Response 

to 

Comments

Steve Sorrow RAILROAD REBUID REQUESTS.

Five points to be made at the hearing Wednesday evening:

1. Move Windsor Locks Station to North Main Street. The Friends will fix the turn table 

to be a secondary entrance to the Windsor Locks Canal Trial. People and bike 

accessible.

3.3 B

Steve Sorrow 2. Add a new curve to connect to the Main Line to Bradley without backing up spur.

3. Build a bike-hike trail on same piers as the train bridge across the river – Suffield – 

Enfield. The bridge is the key to a trail loop from Rt. 140 at the canal bank, up the trail 

and returns the Rt. 140. The next trail extension will be from the RR Bridge to Rt. 190 

bridge and return along the Canal Trail to Rt. 140 or Windsor Locks Train station.

5. Build a one way bridge from T’ville to Burbank Street in East Suffield to service 

moderate rental and purchase housing for commuter clientele. East Suffield has many 

moderate priced rents that would allow easy access to the rail station in T’ville- hike-bike 

& golf cart.

2.0 B

Steve Sorrow 4. All commuter trains to have easy load/unload of bicycles. 4.4.10 F

Michael Sprintz I believe this a very noble project, with good intentions. However I'm not quite sure 

you're going about it the right way. The real benefit of this project would be if the line is 

re-electrified to provide a one seat ride to and from Grand Central Terminal. The benefits 

of that alone would be enough to boost economic prospects of New York, Connecticut 

and Massachusetts. 

 People need alternatives Amtrak, especially when it comes to commuters and believe 

there's significant ridership to be gained especially between Hartford and New York. I 

urge you to consider this in your plans.

4.4.15 A

Donna Starkey I hope that the decision to relocate the Train Platform in Windsor Locks will be a yes. I 

feel the town needs this boost to bring some life to it again. The historical train station will 

be near the Platform and will complement it. Where the Platform is located now is too 

remote, I feel safety is an issue.

3.3 B

Stephan Starkey Locating the train platform to town center: Better Individual Security than location near I91. Potential for new business on main street. A better location for Rail to Bradley IAP 

connection. Windsor Locks town residents are for the change in station locations. 

3.3 B

Richard Stowe Move up New Haven State Street Station improvements (including direct pedestrian 

access to Strauss-Adler, Smoothie building in Wooster Square) to phase 2 of project. 

1.3 B

Richard Stowe Currently, a mix of single and double track exists between New Haven and Berlin. 

Upgrade the current mix to double track. The same applies to the track system from 

Hartford to Springfield.

1.3 C

Richard Stowe [1] traffic congestion in Connecticut is greatest on I-95 in New Haven and Fairfield 

Counties. That's where most traffic mitigation is needed; I-84 has two-thirds of the 

Average Daily Traffic of I-95. A one seat ride from Hartford County to 

Stamford/Greenwich/GCT will alleviate crowding across the whole state. 

2.0 A

Richard Stowe At Berlin Junction, split the double track corridor into two parallel rail corridors from Berlin 

to Hartford. For descriptive purposes, let's name the western corridor - the New HavenNew Britain-Hartford-Springfield Line and the eastern corridor - the New HavenSpringfield Amtrak Line. The New Haven-New Britain-Hartford-Springfield Line would 

have a single track plus a multi-use bike trail between downtown New Britain and 

Hartford; the New Haven-Springfield Amtrak Line would be double tracked. Move local 

station stops (with the exception of Newington Junction) between Meriden and Hartford to 

the New Haven-New Britain-Hartford-Springfield corridor. Those stops include Berlin and 

Elmwood. The Newington Junction station would be replaced by two stations, CCSUNewington and Downtown New Britain. Newington Junction is poorly located because it 

was specifically situated as a transfer stop for the CTfastrack and should be eliminated. 

2.0 B

Richard Stowe Upgrade existing freight railroad track in Windsor & Suffield that go to Bradley Airport, so 

that airline passengers may have a one-seat ride to Bradley Airport. 

2.0 B
B-100

First 

Name

Last 

Name Submission Content

Response 

to 

Comments

Richard Stowe CTfastrack should be eliminated in the Amtrak corridor and on Newington Secondary 

(Newington Junction to downtown New Britain. Sacrificing CTfastrack and replacing it 

with rail service through New Britain allows for more frequent service between New 

Haven-Hartford-Springfield. New overpass and bridgework that enhances grade 

separation of railroad tracks from streets and roads should be retained in the Amtrak 

corridor. 

3.3 D

Richard Stowe Add environmentally-preferred alternative in EA/EIE to current build, no build alternatives. 4.4. 3 A

Richard Stowe Establish an active campaign to encourage bicyclists to bike to stations, roll their bikes on 

the trains and bike to destinations. Also provide high quality, sheltered (e.g. New Haven 

Union Station) bike parking at train stations for those who have no need to bike on the 

other end of their trip. 

4.4.10 F

Richard Stowe Run two parallel services south from Springfield to Hartford- New Britain - New Haven - 

New York; the other as an express service south from Springfield to Hartford-Meriden–

New Haven-New York. Same services in northbound directions. These two services 

should not terminate in New Haven, but continue to Stamford and Greenwich as express 

trains and as soon as the dual-powered equipment (locomotives that also run on 3rd rail) 

is available the trains should terminate in Grand Central Terminal (“GCT”)[1]. On the 

New Haven to GCT segment of New Haven Springfield service create a 3-stop super 

express with a 1 hour 30 minute trip time. 

4.4.10 H

Richard Stowe Terminate New Haven-Springfield service in Northhampton-Amherst to allow for a oneseat ride for college & university students. 4.4.10 H

Richard Stowe To stimulate ridership, all stations should have rail accessible development (RAD) - 

comprised of housing & mixed use commercial rather than parking lots. The revenue 

garnered by developing these land lots now slated for subsidized parking should be 

utilized to operate subsidized time-transfer bus shuttles to the stations. Also use 

revenues, along with FTA safe routes to transit funding, to design complete streets in safe 

routes to transit bike sheds. 

4.4.10 I

Brian Tang This project is one of the most exciting public works projects I can remember. I can't wait 

for the day it opens. If bicycles are allowed, the operation of this rail line would 

significantly expand the region to which I could feasibly commute (I do not know how to 

drive). This is important to me, as a young adult, fresh out of college, interested in sticking 

around New Haven long-term, but by necessity casting a wide net for employment. I know 

of firms who could benefit from hiring a Yale College graduate with a degree in 

Environmental Studies and extensive knowledge of urban transportation planning, but 

where I will not even bother to apply because commuting without a car would not 

currently be an attractive option. The opening of this line, if bicycles are allowed, will 

definitely improve the economic prospects of people like me and make people like me 

more likely to want to stay in New Haven after graduating.

1.1 A

Ted Tofil Yet another taxpayer boondoggle that will be a loser!!!!! 2.0 A

Rebecca Townsend I strongly support the New Haven Hartford Springfield rail line. As founder and former 

president of the Pioneer Valley Advocates for Commuter Rail, I learned about the 

thousands of people who are tired of waiting for real rail travel in our region. We're tired 

of traffic. We're tired of pollution. We're tired of zero economic growth. 

This rail line would bring much needed economic development to our region, increase 

options for travelers, and reduce traffic congestion....and reduce automobile air pollution. 

I live on a street that overlooks I-91. I can hear an occasional train. It would be 

wonderful to hear more trains and fewer cars. Sincerely, Rebecca M. Townsend

1.1 A

Nancy Urbschat I fully support this game-changing project. 1.1 A

Anna Vaillancou

rt

Thank you for adding me to your email list. Please let me know how I can support your 

efforts for this worthwhile project.

1.1 A
B-101

First 

Name

Last 

Name Submission Content

Response 

to 

Comments

Steven Wawruck As a resident and as First Selectman of the Town of Windsor Locks I am in favor of 

relocating the Train Platform back to the center of Town. As a result of a formal Master 

Plan Study of the Main Street corridor the number one catalyst to revitalize the downtown 

business district is to bring the train stop back to the center of Town. This would be the 

catalyst to spur economic development with store fronts that are now vacant becoming 

vibrant and people actually walking on Main St from store front to store front and doing 

business in Town as it was forty years ago. This opportunity should not be squandered as 

we will never get another opportunity to correct the ills of the past. Job growth will be a 

result of this move. We have already experienced a restaurant opening, inquiries into two 

vacant buildings and other inquiries of the vacant mill building as result of the news that 

was just released in the last couple days. Move the platform back to the center of town for 

the economic benefit of the Town, the region and the State. Thanks for allowing me to 

comment.

3.3 B

Jason Zheng Parking Lots do not make Livable Communities 

 The NHHS Rail project is an incredible opportunity for Connecticut to address many 

challenges facing the auto-oriented suburban landscape of Connecticut: vehicle 

congestion, high cost of living (rising gas prices and expensive housing), stretched 

municipal finances, and the flight of young people (and their knowledge and talent) as 

they move away to other states. These are all important issues the State will face in the 

coming decades, but the success of the NHHS Rail in addressing these challenges 

ultimately depends on the redevelopment efforts surrounding the new train stations. 

 The concepts of transit-oriented development, smart growth, and livable communities 

are prominent in national dialogue (especially due to the HUD-DOT-EPA Interagency 

Partnership), but I feel that there is still sometimes a mismatch between practitioners, 

state officials, and local officials. I believe this is evident in some of the train station plans. 

 The most successful train stations will be those in livable and walkable communities. 

The streets should be lined with storefronts and apartments. Some parking is necessary, 

but the real boost to ridership will come from existing and anticipated development. The 

new train stations will generate economic growth and investment, but the redevelopment 

needs to be done in a concerted effort with train station design. 

 A stand-alone train station with hundreds of parking spaces will not help Connecticut’s 

future. Such a train station would still require people to drive to the station, encourage 

additional suburban development, generate more demand for parking, result in more 

parking construction, and the cycle repeats. A train station surrounded by parking lots is 

not transit-oriented development but rather more akin to a park and ride commuter lot. 

 For examples, look to the Milford and the Branford Train Stations. The Milford Train 

Station is in a walkable downtown area with many nearby homes, businesses, and mixeduse buildings. The Branford Train Station must be driven to, has no nearby substantial 

development, and required expanding the parking lot. 

My suggestions: 

 e. Design the parking lots in a manner that will leave space for potential future mixeduse development along the street front. Essentially, the parking lots should have minimal 

street frontage. Parking should be tucked away in the back so that the walk to the train 

station is attractive and inviting for pedestrians. (The West Hartford stop feels like a parkand-ride lot because there are no amenities or nearby buildings, and the Berlin stop even 

has some street front shops torn down for parking lots). 

 f. Use “phased in” parking for all the stations. Currently, the idea to “phase in” 

additional parking is only for the New Haven and Hartford stations. This concept should 

be applied to all the stations. 

 g. Really encourage TOD by engaging in a dialogue with towns, regional MPO’s, 

property owners, and other stakeholders. Some results of this dialogue could lead to 

updates to long-range plans and POCD’s, the use of TOD overlay zones, the 

development of master plans/concept plans for “TOD villages.” While some practitioners 

understand what TOD is, there are still many others that believe TOD means surrounding 

the train station with parking lots. 

 The need for denser mixed-use and transit-oriented development is not only 

beneficial for ridership along the rail corridor, but also addresses critical local and state 

issues. Denser development grows the tax base for municipalities without increasing the 

financial burden of town services (e.g.: more school bus coverage, fire/police coverage 

areas, road maintenance, etc). This style of development will also help the State retain 

and attract young people and their skills (this generation of young adults is more 

interested in active urban lifestyles with access to high-quality transit). 

 This project is to support the knowledge corridor of Connecticut/Massachusetts. If the 

State wants to keep these talented individuals in the area, the State needs to support and 

4.4.10 I
B-102

First 

Name

Last 

Name Submission Content

Response 

to 

Comments

build the places that young people want to live in. 

 Also, please note that many of these ideas are not limited to the NHHS Rail Project 

but are applicable to the New Britain-Hartford Bus Rapid Transit project as well. 
B-103

4. Testimony from Public Hearings Keyed to Responses

Three Public Hearings were held for the project.

• June 7, 2012 at New Britain, CT

• June 13, 2012 at Enfield, CT

• June 14, 2012 at North Haven, CT

The transcripts from each of those meetings are attached. Each comment made by the speaker is responded to 

as annotated or keyed to a response in “2. Summary of Public Comments and Responses”. The numerical 

portion of the response number references the portion of the EA to which it applies.
B-104
B-105
B-106
B-107
B-108
B-109
B-110
B-111
B-112
B-113
B-114
B-115
B-116
B-117
B-118
B-119
B-120
B-121
B-122
B-123
B-124
B-125
B-126
B-127
B-128
B-129
B-130
B-131
B-132
B-133
B-134
B-135
B-136
B-137
B-138
B-139
B-140
B-141
B-142
B-143
B-144
B-145
B-146
B-147
B-148
B-149
B-150
B-151
B-152
B-153
B-154
B-155
B-156
B-157
B-158
B-159
B-160
B-161
B-162
B-163
B-164
B-165
B-166
B-167
B-168
B-169
B-170
B-171
B-172
B-173
B-174
B-175
B-176
B-177
B-178
B-179
B-180
B-181
B-182
B-183
B-184
B-185
B-186
B-187
B-188
B-189
B-190
B-191
B-192
B-193
B-194
B-195
B-196
B-197
B-198
B-199
B-200
B-201
B-202
B-203
B-204
B-205
B-206
B-207
B-208
B-209
B-210
B-211
B-212
B-213
B-214
B-215
B-216
B-217
B-218
B-219
B-220
B-221
B-222
B-223
B-224
B-225
B-226
B-227
B-228
B-229
B-230
B-231
B-232
B-233
B-234
B-235
B-236
B-237
B-238
B-239
B-240
B-241
B-242
B-243
B-244
B-245
B-246
B-247
B-248 
B-249
B-250
B-251
B-252
B-253
B-254
B-255
B-256
B-257
B-258
B-259
B-260
B-261
B-262
B-263
B-264
B-265
B-266
B-267
B-268
B-269
B-270
B-271
B-272
B-273
B-274
B-275
B-276
B-277
B-278
B-279
B-280
B-281
B-282
B-283
B-284
B-285
B-286
B-287

5. Copy of the workshop report “Dependable Rail in 2016: What Will it Mean for the Knowledge 

Corridor”
B-288
B-289
B-290
B-291
B-292
B-293
B-294
B-295
B-296
B-297
B-298
B-299
B-300
B-301
B-302
B-303
B-304
B-305
B-306
B-307
B-308
B-309
B-310
B-311
B-312
B-313
B-314
B-315
B-316
B-317
B-318
B-319